Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[esquirecomics]

is Action #1 the pinnacle of comic book collecting?

 

I do not think so

 

Well then you'd be wrong, just like OO being a comic book. I can't believe you'd make the above statement. Superman is a FRANCHISE; has launched movies, toys, lunch boxes, and spawned millions of imitators. The first appearance of this character IS the pinnacle of comic book collecting. I can't honestly believe this is what you've come up with after all your research.

 

Does ANYONE agree with the statement from BOB? How about you, showcase-4, holder of multiple OO's? Is Action #1 the pinnacle of comic collecting?

 

I think Bob is certainly entitled to his opinion. And if that is his opinion, so be it. It also depends on how someone wants to interpret the word "pinnacle" or what is important to them in the way of comic book collecting.

 

I can understand his view regardless of whether I may or may not support it. I don't see this question as anything other than having a subjective answer that is neither right nor wrong based on an individual's tastes and views, though by all means there could easily be a collective viewpoint that is strongly sided in one direction which perhaps evidences a contrary position.

[aardvark88]

Most important comic books to me:

1. Action #1

2. Zap #1

3. Pep #22 Archie

4. Mad # 1

5. Walt Disney's Comics & Stories #1

 

If Obadiah Oldbuck was a bachelor bitten by a radioactive butterfly, then dawned a cape & had fist fights with Capt Saddlebags, it might make my top 5 list.

[FFB]

Richard Outcault's Yellow Kid was the first comic strip to use balloons.

According to many experts, the precursors to modern comics were the satirical works of artists like Rudolph Töpffer, Wilhelm Bush, Christophe, or Angelo Agostini (first Brazilian comic artist).

 

(snip)

 

Yellow Kid

The 1895 "Yellow Kid" created by Richard Outcault has often been cited as being the first comic strip. The reason being is that Richard Outcault was the first artist to use the balloon, an outlined space on the page where what the characters spoke was written. However, comic strips and comic books were published before "Yellow Kid" debuted in the New York City newspaper "The World".

 

Outcault was definitely not the first artist to use the word balloon. This piece below is an etching I picked up at an auction about 10 years ago. It dates from 1798, and depicts a carpenter who won an appeal after being wrongfully convicted of criticizing the government. It uses word balloons and was published in a volume called "Folio of Caricatures Lent Out for the Evening." There are quite a few other cartoons from that period (late 1700s, early 1800s) that use word balloons as well.

 

[Shield]

is Action #1 the pinnacle of comic book collecting?

 

I do not think so

 

Well then you'd be wrong, just like OO being a comic book. I can't believe you'd make the above statement. Superman is a FRANCHISE; has launched movies, toys, lunch boxes, and spawned millions of imitators. The first appearance of this character IS the pinnacle of comic book collecting. I can't honestly believe this is what you've come up with after all your research.

 

Does ANYONE agree with the statement from BOB? How about you, showcase-4, holder of multiple OO's? Is Action #1 the pinnacle of comic collecting?

 

I think Bob is certainly entitled to his opinion. And if that is his opinion, so be it. It also depends on how someone wants to interpret the word "pinnacle" or what is important to them in the way of comic book collecting.

 

I can understand his view regardless of whether I may or may not support it. I don't see this question as anything other than having a subjective answer that is neither right nor wrong based on an individual's tastes and views, though by all means there could easily be a collective viewpoint that is strongly sided in one direction which perhaps evidences a contrary position.

 

Again, I'm clearly entitled to my opinion as well. Bob's a big boy and can stick up for himself. Of course anything having to do with comics is subjective; to me Pep #22 is the pinnacle of comic collecting. But if I had $1000 cash in a cash-only antique store and I had the choice of unrestored VG copies of both, I'd pick the Action every time. Why? Obviously, it's more valuable. Why is it more valuable? Because it's the ultimate pinnacle of comic books!

[shiverbones]

I am breaking my vow to stay away from this thread for the second time. I have been reading Gerard Jones' "Men of Tomorrow, Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book" when it hit me exactly why OO is not a comic book, and why YK is not a comic book, and why even the Funnies is not a comic book. Its the size of the format. This may at first sound ludicrous, but there comes a point in evolution where ONE missing element is discovered that spawns an entirely new form because that one element is for whatever reason the thing that makes it click.

 

Early attempt at a newstand comic were inspired by the newspaper reprint books, which were probably inspired by the victorian books. The early attempts at "comic Books" in the late 20's & 30' were all larger formats and they all failed. Even at 5 cents, during the depression, the Funnies Failed. Even New Fun. It took "Standard" size, which is half tabloid, for whatever reason, to be the format that clicked with the public and caused it to take off. The gestalt of the times, of depression era, of People desperately trying to make a living, of consumers looking for a cheap, convenient & attractive package, all of that came together and it WORKED, and comic books were born. Perhaps it was the format being closer to pulps which were already popular.

 

Why then, does that exclude the victorian & platinum books from being comic books? Because it is not about the semantics of the term "Comic book" it is about the object itself, regardless of terminology. "A rose by any other name..." That object, the comic book, began with Funnies on parade.

 

The reason Ragtime is not Jazz, is because it took the invention of "The Big four" beat by Buddy Bolsen to be the one defining factor that changed it from one form to another. Ragtime pre-dates Jazz, and inspired Jazz, but it is not Jazz. That analogy is extremely close to the Victrian/Plat books and True Comc Books. It took the Format to change the very item itself into what it is.

 

And Bob, I own exactly 1 cgc book (House of Secrets #138) and do not collect superheroes other then highlights of the form. I do however have a lifelong love for comic books and appreciate all genres. I have read what you have stated very carefully as I do put importance in what you say. I think though, in your search for the oldest example you lost sight of the bigger picture. It happens to me all the time when I am working on a painting. I get all worked up about making sure the brush strokes in a certain area are deduced to their absolute pure neccessity, not too many, not to few, but the perfect balance. I'll stare at a section for an hour or two, agonizing over it. Then I realize all my focus on that area has distorted its harmony with the rest of the painting, and I need to reevaluate what I am doing and bring all the parts together in a unity that brings the bigger picture together.

[showcase4]

How about you, showcase-4, holder of multiple OO's? Is Action #1 the pinnacle of comic collecting?

 

As an owner of 3 Obadiah Oldbuck's, and 0 Action #1's, being intellectually honest I would say there is no question that Action #1 is the pinnacle of comic collecting. It's stature, grandness, dominance, demand and importance is unquestionable. It is in a league of it's own...the true grail of this entire hobby. With that said, Obadiah Oldbuck is the grail for the entire Victorian/Platinum Age period..nothing to sneeze at. Put another way....Obdiah Oldbuck is "a" key, and Action #1 is (THE) key.

 

When this post started, way back on day 1, I was comparing Oldbuck to Action #1 to get some feedback as to why you guys thought Action #1 was so much more in demand and valuable than Oldbuck. I never implied or meant to imply that it shouldn't be that way...these 2 books are 2 completely different animals.I also believe that some, not all Victorian/Platinum age comics are grossly undervalued based on their rarity and historical signifigance...as a collector, this is very appealing to me. If I'm wrong...I still have my 401k.

 

 

I believe there are 2 defined markets within our hobby...especially after all that has been contributed on this post.

 

modern comic books: 1933 (Funnies on Parade) - present

comic books: 1842 - 1933

 

Sounds like most of you think it's much more complicated than this, but not for me. Since we all agree that 1933 was that start of what we now know as the modern comic book, the use of the word "modern" implies that there was something before it...that is the 1842-early 1933 time period (again, for me). I think this entire debate is very healthy for the hobby, as perhaps it will help lead to clarifying the blurred line between what is and what is not.

[Theagenes]

 

I think Bob is certainly entitled to his opinion. And if that is his opinion, so be it. It also depends on how someone wants to interpret the word "pinnacle" or what is important to them in the way of comic book collecting.

 

I can understand his view regardless of whether I may or may not support it. I don't see this question as anything other than having a subjective answer that is neither right nor wrong based on an individual's tastes and views, though by all means there could easily be a collective viewpoint that is strongly sided in one direction which perhaps evidences a contrary position.

 

Mark, you asked a while back if it is really necessary to define our terms other than for academic reasons. I think the last few pages

illustrate why it is important (if this is going to an academic discussion at all). For a few posts there I was starting to learn some

interesting things about lithography and 19th century printing techniques and then things quickly descended back into the same

semantic quibbling that has had this thread going in circles for weeks.

 

Bill, at this point it should be very clear how Bob is using his terminology and how you are using yours. Can't we move past it already?

When Bob uses the term "comic magazine" simply insert "comic book." When Bob uses the term "comic book," just insert whatever broad

general term you want to use to describe any comic-like publication -- maybe "illustrated narrative" or "picture book" or, as Earl

suggested, simply "comics." Is that really so hard? You obviously have some interest in these Victorian era books; wouldn't you like

to move on to more substantive topics like the books themselves? I agree with a number of your points regarding nomenclature, but it

seems pointless to continue to rehash it over and over. I think we all know where we stand on terminology at this point. Let's move

on. I doubt you want to descend to the level of Sho 'nuff's trolling spree.

 

And yes, Sho 'nuff, at this point you are just

trolling, trying to be intentionally provocative in order to get a reaction out of Bob and it's getting tiresome. We know where you

stand: "OO is not a comicbook and Bob is a huckster." Fine. Can we move on now?

 

Jeff

 

[edited to try and put in some line breaks so idon't have to scrolling to read this. ]

[infinite_comics-migration]

When this post started, way back on day 1, I was comparing Oldbuck to Action #1 to get some feedback as to why you guys thought Action #1 was so much more in demand and valuable than Oldbuck. I never implied or meant to imply that it shouldn't be that way...these 2 books are 2 completely different animals.

 

More disingenuous, hypocritical B.S. A true master!

[showcase4]

 

ingenuous, A true master!

 

Thanks buddy....

[ciorac]

 

I think Bob is certainly entitled to his opinion. And if that is his opinion, so be it. It also depends on how someone wants to interpret the word "pinnacle" or what is important to them in the way of comic book collecting.

 

I can understand his view regardless of whether I may or may not support it. I don't see this question as anything other than having a subjective answer that is neither right nor wrong based on an individual's tastes and views, though by all means there could easily be a collective viewpoint that is strongly sided in one direction which perhaps evidences a contrary position.

 

Mark, you asked a while back if it is really necessary to define our terms other than for academic reasons. I think the last few pages

illustrate why it is important (if this is going to an academic discussion at all). For a few posts there I was starting to learn some

interesting things about lithography and 19th century printing techniques and then things quickly descended back into the same

semantic quibbling that has had this thread going in circles for weeks.

 

Bill, at this point it should be very clear how Bob is using his terminology and how you are using yours. Can't we move past it already?

When Bob uses the term "comic magazine" simply insert "comic book." When Bob uses the term "comic book," just insert whatever broad

general term you want to use to describe any comic-like publication -- maybe "illustrated narrative" or "picture book" or, as Earl

suggested, simply "comics." Is that really so hard? You obviously have some interest in these Victorian era books; wouldn't you like

to move on to more substantive topics like the books themselves? I agree with a number of your points regarding nomenclature, but it

seems pointless to continue to rehash it over and over. I think we all know where we stand on terminology at this point. Let's move

on. I doubt you want to descend to the level of Sho 'nuff's trolling spree.

 

And yes, Sho 'nuff, at this point you are just

trolling, trying to be intentionally provocative in order to get a reaction out of Bob and it's getting tiresome. We know where you

stand: "OO is not a comicbook and Bob is a huckster." Fine. Can we move on now?

 

Jeff

 

[edited to try and put in some line breaks so idon't have to scrolling to read this. ]

 

Ok, Jeff. I see your point. Perhaps we should move on. In Bob's case, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

I am keeping an open mind about OO as to its place in history. My reprint is on the way. Although if you look at Bob's posts that show the 1842 edition and then the reprint, you will see how it is repackaged to look like a comic, so it may not sway me much.

 

I don't consider my attempts to get Bob to admit to what is patently obvious to the rest of the world "trolling". But, I agree that he is resolute in his denials of fact, and there is not point in attempting to get him off center.

 

I never used the term "pinnacle" someone else did. That is a truly subjective term. Relative importance, the issue at hand for me is much more of an objective assessment. And given the history of comics in their totality it is impossible to make a claim for any other comic book than Action #1 as being the most important. Regardless of whether or not Superman was a superhero. That was simply the device. It just so happened that the first superhero, Superman, launched a comic book industry that continues to this day, in print, media, merchandising and film. Everthing else that happened after that link back to its success. The fact that comics became profitable on that level allowed the superhero explosion to happen. Which paved the way for all of the other genres to appear. Had he not, who knows what may have happened to comcis. But, that would be subjective. We do know what did in fact happen, and that closes the case on that argument for all time.

 

So, OO may be the first comic book, cool!! Neato! But that makes it significant, but certainly not the most important.

 

As far as to what is and what isn't a comic book, I guess that will remain an opininion issue and I will leave it alone.

[ciorac]

How about you, showcase-4, holder of multiple OO's? Is Action #1 the pinnacle of comic collecting?

 

As an owner of 3 Obadiah Oldbuck's, and 0 Action #1's, being intellectually honest I would say there is no question that Action #1 is the pinnacle of comic collecting. It's stature, grandness, dominance, demand and importance is unquestionable. It is in a league of it's own...the true grail of this entire hobby. With that said, Obadiah Oldbuck is the grail for the entire Victorian/Platinum Age period..nothing to sneeze at. Put another way....Obdiah Oldbuck is "a" key, and Action #1 is (THE) key.

 

When this post started, way back on day 1, I was comparing Oldbuck to Action #1 to get some feedback as to why you guys thought Action #1 was so much more in demand and valuable than Oldbuck. I never implied or meant to imply that it shouldn't be that way...these 2 books are 2 completely different animals.I also believe that some, not all Victorian/Platinum age comics are grossly undervalued based on their rarity and historical signifigance...as a collector, this is very appealing to me. If I'm wrong...I still have my 401k.

 

 

I believe there are 2 defined markets within our hobby...especially after all that has been contributed on this post.

 

modern comic books: 1933 (Funnies on Parade) - present

comic books: 1842 - 1933

 

Sounds like most of you think it's much more complicated than this, but not for me. Since we all agree that 1933 was that start of what we now know as the modern comic book, the use of the word "modern" implies that there was something before it...that is the 1842-early 1933 time period (again, for me). I think this entire debate is very healthy for the hobby, as perhaps it will help lead to clarifying the blurred line between what is and what is not.

 

If everyone had been following along for the past few weeks, you would know that after much intelligent debate, Steve agreed that Action #1 was the most important comic book.

 

Pinnacle is a personal opinion matter.

[selegue]

The History of Comic Books

From Mary Bellis,

 

Fuel, when was this book published?

 

I was wondering the same thing myself. Ms Bellis must be quite an eminent authority on the history of comics since some people believe her word over Bob Beerbohm's.

Bob, do you run into her often at the New York City Library, Library of Congress and Angoulême when you're doing your research?

 

Jack

[BLBcomics-migration]

The OO reprint coming your way (you should have it today BTW) is an exact size exact format facsimile of the original. The Italians put a cover on it using art from inside the comic strip - there are pages on each side with explanations and translations. The English-translated text is identical to the original English language version. You continue to supply emotion to that which you have not yet seen. That is not very scientific, Bill, but that is also just my opinion.

 

One of my 1920s Cupples & Leon books has a collector's list in the back inside cover listing his "comic books" in his collection in pencil in that he called them that. I have to re-find that comic book and scan it for people to read here. The collector called his C&Ls "comic books"

 

For shiverbones to state the earlier formats were not successful is to display a lack of knowledge concerning these earlier eras of how well they sold to the general public

 

The Stokes large size oblong comic books of Buster Brown, Happy Hooligan, Katzenjammer Kids, Lulu and Leander, Maud, and dozens of others:

 

 

the oblong daily strip reprints of Mutt & Jeff beginning in 1910 thru 1916:

 

 

the Cupples & Leon 10x10 48 page format as well as their 9x8 100 page hard cover series reprinting the popular daily strips of the day:

 

and here is one which is off most people's radar as it came out in 1931 from Dell and contains all original material, so it comes before Detective dan in that regard:

 

are all comic books. In fact, i have distributor trade journals of American News Company from 1920 stating that the first three Bringing Up Father comic books had sold over a million copies each. maybe that is not good enough to be successful?

 

Sizes, page counts, formats, bindings are all subjective and do not detract from them being comic books.

 

And this is a comic book as well:

 

 

every bit as much as these are comic books:

 

 

All the other genres except Super hero were in place before 1938 and were selling well. Super heroes did not create the comics market. It was already there.

 

Super heroes did have a Big Bang in 1938-1940, no doubt about it, but they individually were not the best sellers - who here thinks they were? If you think that way, you are wrong.

 

Walt Disney's Comics and Stories is the all time champ, leaving out the multi-cover X-men #1 by Jim Lee for a sec. WD C&S sold in excess of 4 million an issue for many years

 

LOONEY TUNES MERRY MELODIES sold over 3 million an issue for years

 

Show me a super hero who got close to those numbers issue in issue out

 

As much as i enjoy the Last Son of Krypton as any one else here, this fixation on Superman is unhealthy. Comic strips had been around for centuries before Superman, Comic strips other than Superman were enjoyed my many more millions before Superman, Comic books containing many of these earlier comic strips were selling quite well - that is a simple fact.

 

Go get this book:

 

 

it is supposed to be still available on Amazon in a 2nd printing. It first came out in 1998

[BLBcomics-migration]

The History of Comic Books

From Mary Bellis,

 

Fuel, when was this book published?

 

I was wondering the same thing myself. Ms Bellis must be quite an eminent authority on the history of comics since some people believe her word over Bob Beerbohm's.

Bob, do you run into her often at the New York City Library, Library of Congress and Angoulême when you're doing your research?

 

Jack

 

never heard of her and was going to ask the same question Mark did

 

where did this data come from?

[Earl Davis]

The History of Comic Books

From Mary Bellis,

Your Guide to Inventors.

 

Richard Outcault's Yellow Kid was the first comic strip to use balloons.

According to many experts, the precursors to modern comics were the satirical works of artists like Rudolph Töpffer, Wilhelm Bush, Christophe, or Angelo Agostini (first Brazilian comic artist).

 

Rudolph Töpffer - Birth of the Graphic Novel

In 1827, Switzerland's Rudolphe Töpffer created a comic strip and continued on to publish seven graphic novels. In 1837, "The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck" was published by Rudolphe Töpffer and it is considered the earliest known comic book. In 1842, "The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck" became the first comic book published in the United States.

 

"Obadiah Oldbuck" was a forty page book. Each page had several picture panels with accompanying text underneath.

 

Wilhelm Bush

In 1859, German poet and artist, Wilhelm Bush published caricatures in the newspaper Fliegende Blätter. In 1865, he published a famous comic called "Max und Moritz".

 

Yellow Kid

The 1895 "Yellow Kid" created by Richard Outcault has often been cited as being the first comic strip. The reason being is that Richard Outcault was the first artist to use the balloon, an outlined space on the page where what the characters spoke was written. However, comic strips and comic books were published before "Yellow Kid" debuted in the New York City newspaper "The World".

 

Are Comic Books Funny?

Around 1900, the terms "comics" and "comic strip" came into common use in the United States. Where did the word come from? The strips of pictures being printed in magazines and newspapers at that time were all funny or comic. At first newspaper comic strips were called "the funnies" and later the term comics became more popular. Early American comic books were often collections of reprints of newspaper comic strips.

 

Brenda Starr

On June 19, 1940, "Brenda Starr" the first cartoon strip written by a woman was published in Chicago.

 

Mad Magazine

American publisher, William Gaines started Mad magazine in 1952, a popular and satirical monthly comic book.

 

A Tidbit of Comic Book History

In 1754, Benjamin Franklin created the first editorial cartoon published in an American newspaper. Franklin's cartoon was an illustration of a snake with a severed head and had the printed words "Join, or Die." The cartoon was intended to goad the different colonies into joining what was to become the United States.

 

1) FALSE Word balloons first started being used as early as 450 AD. Outcault was far from being the first one to use word balloons. But then, they cite earlier uses of word balloons before RFO

 

Brenda Starr is not the first comic strip by a woman

 

That honor goes to:

 

WOMAN IN SEARCH OF HER RIGHTS, THE ADVENTURES OF (G)

Lee & Shepard, Boston And New York: early 1850s (8-3/8x13”, 40 pgs, hard-c)

By Florence Claxton (scarce) 300.00 600.00 1000.00

NOTE: Earliest known original comic book sequential story by a woman; contains “nearly 100 original drawings by the author, which have been reproduced in fac-simile by the graphotype process of engraving.” Tinted two color lithography; orange tint printed first, thenprinted 2nd time with black ink; early women’s sufferage.

 

and the earliest newspaper comic strips by a woman i know of were by Edwina, who began as early as 1916 drawing a strip called "Cap" Stubbs and Tippie.

 

In NEMO #25 April 1987, Rick Marschall and Bill Janocha interviewed her as she was still at work, observing her 70th year at the drawing board

 

 

I recommend Nemo back issues to anyone who has not tried it before.

 

Earl.

[selegue]

...

 

...

I don't consider my attempts to get Bob to admit to what is patently obvious to the rest of the world "trolling". But, I agree that he is resolute in his denials of fact, and there is not point in attempting to get him off center.

 

 

Interesting points in your message, ciorac (sorry, I forgot your real name), I'm sure no one is accusing you of trolling. That honor goes to the clowns who have lots to say but nothing to contribute. Certainly not the kind of people you want as allies when you're trying to make a point.

 

 

...And given the history of comics in their totality it is impossible to make a claim for any other comic book than Action #1 as being the most important. Regardless of whether or not Superman was a superhero. That was simply the device. It just so happened that the first superhero, Superman, launched a comic book industry that continues to this day, in print, media, merchandising and film.

 

Are you understating that claim with "Regardless of whether or not Superman was a superhero" and "It just so happened"? After all, Detective Comics 1 predated Action Comics 1 by a couple of years -- same company, same format, some of the same creators -- yet no one here is championing that as "most important comic book". Demi-gods in circus suits definitely resonated with the general public and attracted a fanatical audience that rates them above all other genres.

 

 

Everthing else that happened after that link back to its success. The fact that comics became profitable on that level allowed the superhero explosion to happen. Which paved the way for all of the other genres to appear.

 

 

I have to argue against that point. The other genres had already appeared (detective, funny animals, etc. ... western, adventure and occult shared space with Superman in Action Comics 1!) so Superman didn't pave the way for them.

 

 

Had he not, who knows what may have happened to comcis. But, that would be subjective. We do know what did in fact happen, and that closes the case on that argument for all time.

 

 

Comics probably would have kept on keepin' on with the genres that were already working -- both reprints and original material -- until someone else stumbled onto a formula as good as Superman. Mickey Mouse and his funny animal pals had already been doing fine in their comic MAGAZINE since 1935. Funny animals probably would have dominated the comic-book medium all the way up into the 1950s. (Come to think of it, that's what really happened anyway. Somebody pull out those Dell sales figures.)

 

 

As far as to what is and what isn't a comic book, I guess that will remain an opininion issue and I will leave it alone.

 

Somebody say, "Hallelujah!"

 

Jack

[selegue]

Bob--

 

We must have been typing at the same time. I didn't mean to repeat your points, which you made more effectively with the real sales data I was looking for, in the next post.

 

Jack

 

 

All the other genres except Super hero were in place before 1938 and were selling well. Super heroes did not create the comics market. It was already there.

 

Super heroes did have a Big Bang in 1938-1940, no doubt about it, but they individually were not the best sellers - who here thinks they were? If you think that way, you are wrong.

 

Walt Disney's Comics and Stories is the all time champ, leaving out the multi-cover X-men #1 by Jim Lee for a sec. WD C&S sold in excess of 4 million an issue for many years

 

LOONEY TUNES MERRY MELODIES sold over 3 million an issue for years

 

Show me a super hero who got close to those numbers issue in issue out

 

As much as i enjoy the Last Son of Krypton as any one else here, this fixation on Superman is unhealthy. Comic strips had been around for centuries before Superman, Comic strips other than Superman were enjoyed my many more millions before Superman, Comic books containing many of these earlier comic strips were selling quite well - that is a simple fact....

[Earl Davis]

Do we at least agree with this…

 

(probably not)…

 

When some people say comic book then mean any publication containing comic strip material. When other people say comic book they mean a particular physical characteristic of publication concerning comics, namely the format dominant in the USA since the 1930’s. Most people agree that most Platinum and Victorian age publications containing comics are not in the same physical format as modern comic books.

 

When some collectors say the collect comic books they mean they collect exclusively the modern format. Other collectors mean they collect all formats of publication that contain comics.

 

So we have people using the same name to describe things that are different.

 

Should they have the same name?

 

View 1) They should have the same name because they can have identical content.

 

View 2) They should have different names because they have different physical characteristics.

 

There is a secondary debate relating to the interior contents. The main issues raised in this area are…

 

1) Is a comic without word balloons still a comic.

2) Is a comic with the text below rather than integrated within the panel still a comic.

 

Most people would agree there is a difference. Analogy…

 

A black and White comic is different than a colour comic. Are they both still comics? – Yes. Are they different – Yes. How do we deal with this, we give them extra description. So we have Color Comics and B&W comics.

 

So why can’t we have Comics with ballons and Comics without ballons? – They are related (sharing most characteristics in common) but have differences so have additional descriptors to distinguish them.

 

And when is a comic not a comic? – When it has more characteristics that are different than common.

[mica]

I recommend Nemo back issues to anyone who has not tried it before.

 

Earl.

[Earl Davis]

When Bob says Obadiah is a Comic book is he right? Yes in my opinion, because Bob uses the word Comic Book to describe publications, which contain comic material.

 

When Shield says Obadiah is not a comic book is he right? Yes in my opinion, because Shield uses the word Comic Book to describe a physical format of a publication, which does not even have to contain comics (Marvel Handbooks).

 

So you are both right. Just using the same word to describe different things. Same type of content, differnt physical characteristics.

 

That’s why I prefer to say I collect ‘Comics’ as opposed to ‘Comics Books’. I collect publications which contain comic material irrespective of physical format.