Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[infinite_comics-migration]

If we assume that the modern comic book era began in say 1935, that's 71 years from then to 2006. You admit that superheros have dominated since 1960 and let's assume for discussion that superheros also dominated in the war years... the so-called golden age (let's put it at 1940 - 1945). That would mean that superheros have dominated comic books for 51 of the 71 years that the modern comic book has existed... over 70%.

 

That's just a blip!

[showcase4]

ok so your saying what? that superman and action 1 are not the single most important elements of comics. if not, what then?

Slow Motion: NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOO Don't ask him....

 

[Monstro]

[Monstro]

but really it is as simple as that if not action 1.....then what?

[ciorac]

all these characters, creators and publications are all very important in the history of comics. there is no denying that. but not ONE of them stands alone the way superman

and action comics #1 have.

in fact all of those that you have mentioned combined pales in comparison to the number of readers superman has brought into this hobby over the years.

 

Two things:

 

1) I think you're mis-reading Bob's post: he is not saying that the examples he gives are as or more important than Superman. He is hypothically wondering if those other characters would have burgeoned into what they've become, thereby Bob is clearly placing Superman at the center of all thing comics! yet, people imply - again - that he is denigrating its importance. Please read carefully.

 

2) Re: your "all of those that you have mentioned combined pales in comparison to the number of readers superman has brought into this hobby over the years" comment - I think you ought to revisit your position. If I had to present only one piece of evidence, I would mention Carl Barks on Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge. Go around and ask people that were growing up in the lates 40's - early 50's, before TV was a such a part of the US culture and you'll find out that invariably, their comic book recollection includes Barks's work as it will include Little Lulu. It's hard for us today to imagine how popular Lulu was back then but Dell was selling tons of copies for a reason! Lastly, the guys will remember the singing cowboys but generally with less intensity or "zeal."

 

I should make a promise to myself not to post in this thread again ...

 

Thanks Scrooge, some one is actually reading my words, not reading INTO my words

 

I think many posters here are trying to inject their own comics reading childhood into this discussion - and i have spent a life time exploring the historical contexts business concepts

 

I have bought many thousands of collections from original owners beginning in 1966. Most of the time one would find many Dells in runs and a smattering of super hero in collections begun before 1960. Irwin Donenfeld told me several times that Dell was over half the comic book industry in America - every body else were the other half.

 

Post 1960 in the Silver Age of super heroes in the 1960s, then one finds majority of super heroes in the collection as an average norm

 

My research into periodical industry trade journals dating back to 1919 gives me an edge over some of the listers here. I have seen the facts, figures, charts, graphs the comics industry published to educate the sellers back then what the readers were seeking to purchase. Just one of the reasons i take the stands i have here, i know i have the facts on my side

 

If we assume that the modern comic book era began in say 1935, that's 71 years from then to 2006. You admit that superheros have dominated since 1960 and let's assume for discussion that superheros also dominated in the war years... the so-called golden age (let's put it at 1940 - 1945). That would mean that superheros have dominated comic books for 51 of the 71 years that the modern comic book has existed... over 70%. I don't see how any other genre -- Dell funny animal books or whatever -- can possibly hold the same (or greater) import.

 

Don't bother, I tried that argument pages and pages ago.

[ciorac]

[ But old Supey launched the superhero industry, and wove himself so deeply into the pop culture of this country that making a case for another SINGLE book, would be tough. I would love to hear you opinion on what other SINGLE book, not genre could possible have created more than Action #1 did.

 

This board may resided in "slab land", but not all of us are practicioners of slabbology. In fact, many of us enjoy liberating our treasures from slabs when we buy them. I come here because it is a nice relaxing place to engage in conversation with comic collectors. No such place exists in my neighborhood anymore since I left New Orleans. So it helps fill that void.

 

You seem to be discussing a single tree, i am looking at the entire forest.

 

READ my posts over again more closely.

 

I am, have been, will ocntinue discussing the comics INDUSTRY - over 160 years worth of an industry in America

 

It was doing quite nicely before Superman came on to the set and has done quite nicely in those "eras" when super heroes were not so popular.

 

If one looks at many Superman comic books, and compares to Superman Sunday strips, one quickly discovers that many, many of the newspaper strip comics stories are identical to ones later in the comic books, albeit re-drawn, especially Wayne Boring story lines

 

- news paper comics are inter-woven with collections of those same strips dating back over 100 years - so what

 

They are all comic books - whether "original" or "collections"

 

If not for news paper comic strips such as Flash Gordon or Gang Busters, we might very well might not have had Bob Kane drawing "original" Batman art

 

- that is Flash Gordon by Raymond on the cover of Detective 27, as we all now know. The 6 page innards come from Gang Busters

 

If not for Superman, would Walt Kelly have invented Pogo?

 

Would Charlie Shultz have created Peanuts?

 

come on

 

Wizard of Id, Dennis the Menace, Dondi, Fritzi Ritz morphing into Nancy, Calvin & Hobbes

 

Popeye was insanely popular back in the day in comics, film, toys, etc

 

The list is almost endless and my fingers truly would hurt if i began typing out the names of all the super popular comics which have entered our popular culture over the past 100 years

 

Little Nemo, Buster Brown, Katzenjammer Kids, Happy Hooligan, Maud, etc etc etc

 

And all these "other" comics had comic books, in all kinds of formats

 

Yes, Yes, Yes, Superman jump started the super hero comic book.

 

That is not what is under discussion as i refuse to narrowly look at the comics industry thru such narrow restricting blinders.

 

As stated many many times here, the comics industry in America stretches back over 160 years now.

 

Gottfredson began Mickey Mouse adventures all over the world in 1930. Original stuff, just a year or two after Steamboat Willie debuted.

 

Carl Barks did many hundreds of original Donald Duck, Uncle Scrooge, Gyro Gearloose, and many other comic strips in comic books which sold very well. Walt Disney's Comics & Stories sold over 4 million an issue for many years - the best selling comic book ever in America.

 

Single book? Action #1? They only printed 250,000 copies back in 1938.

 

Skippy's Own Book of Comics in 1934 had a million printed and they all went away, so says the historical record

 

There are innumerable other examples as well of best selling comic books, irregardless of where that material may have been previously published. That is not important.

 

The super hero aspect of the comics industry has never been even a simple majority of the paid circulation of this industry in all its varied formats - and i will agree once again, as i have quite a few times, that yes, Action #1 jump started a mystery men super hero industry that did not exist previously.

 

The proof of all i have been posting here and other CGC threads will be in my comics history book - i am not going to publish it here

 

Great info! I know you focus on the whole landscape and I am proud of you....

 

But, it still doesn't answer my question..

 

What SINGLE comic book contributed more to the comics industry/hobby/pop culture than Action #1?

 

That is all I want to know.

[BLBcomics-migration]

 

I see what you're saying... I think the disagreement is over how to define "comic book." It sounds like you have assumed a very expansive definition that covers all remotely related types of illustration. I think this is overreaching, but that's just my view. To me, comic strips, platinum age books, etc. are not comic books... they're steps in the evolution towards comic books... much like a chimp is not a human (though we apparently share over 99% of comparable DNA).

 

Also, while I acknowledge that there are, and have been many different genres of comic books (I personally enjoy horror comics much more than superhero), superheros were uniquely born from comic books and superheroes are by far the genre that comic books are most associated with today (and undoubtedly for most periods since Action #1 showed up). If you asked 100 people on the street to name a comic book character, an overwhelming majority will name a superhero.

 

Regarding the comic book market today, well guess what... circulations of ALL periodicals are way down. People don't read paper periodicals like they used to... not with the internet becoming so pervasive. But folks have been shelling out a lot of bucks to go see superhero movies. And if you read a review of a superhero movie, it will be described as a "comic book" movie. Can't say you'd see that same description with a new Ducks movie, or Popeye, or Tarzan, or Buster Brown, etc..

 

You said you see what i am talking about - yet i have never been talking about an "expansive definition that covers all remotely related types of illustration."

 

That is silly

 

i have been researching and have developed proof of comic strips appearing in magazines and book form - with that first comic book dating to 1842, a mantra i will keep repeating because it is simple truth. I do not call single panel illustrations "comic strips", but they can be comics

 

and i have been discussing all along, since i got sucked into this thread, the comics industry in America.

 

I vastly prefer hard cover comic books - that is how i am collecting Will Eisner's Spirit and also compiling my early Superman & Batman stories - in hard cover comic books

 

I consider New Fun 1 thru 6 comic books, yet the narrow definition some here wish to cling to would preclude them form being comic books

 

Neither would the first Jumbo or Master comic books following the view of some

 

What i would like to see here therefore is a definition of a "book"

 

Not calling the Plat Cupples & Leon comic books is silly, sorry - and i have never called comic strips (as in the news paper variety i assume you mean) comic books either. Why bring this up when i have never stated thusly?

 

Re super hero being the defining view of comic book, Archie comics sell very well, among a great many others. The general public thinks in terms of comic books as something for kids along the lines of Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, Archie, etc.

 

That is why you get wing nuts who like to see comic book store people prosecuted when comic books have adult nature stories in them. Other wise we would not see the Comic Legal Defense Fund

 

If you asked 100 people off the street, most would say "they still make those things?"

 

Yes, i know fully well that circulations on ALL periodicals are down - as are sales of most anything paper print media these days. That is a point of sorts:

 

the super hero movie bringing in big bucks is a more recent phenomena - and this discussion ranges back 160+ years. These same super hero movies have not translated into increased readership of comic books. I do wonder what your point was

[BLBcomics-migration]

Don't know if many folks even read the articles in the OPG anymore...

Most just dive in to see if their Bronze Age book has increased in value.

 

why not gather together all of your already published pieces and

reproduce them via xerox so that others can check it out.

 

You could sell them for a nominal amount and

piggy bank the proceeds towards your Opus Magnus !?!

 

Sounds like a grand plan - i take it you have no CBM, CBA, etc which contain previous stuff by me - no, what my book will require will be a lot of money as scoped out by David Scroggy of Dark Horse, akin to the money their book BETWEEN THE PANELS required to print

[adams]

yes, I have all of the CBMs..and your articles seem to ramble..

that's why I wondered if you were getting an editor...

you need editing to be more precise and to the point

I know that there are many, many points you wish to make..

all authors need editors...period.

[BLBcomics-migration]

If we assume that the modern comic book era began in say 1935, that's 71 years from then to 2006. You admit that superheros have dominated since 1960 and let's assume for discussion that superheros also dominated in the war years... the so-called golden age (let's put it at 1940 - 1945). That would mean that superheros have dominated comic books for 51 of the 71 years that the modern comic book has existed... over 70%. I don't see how any other genre -- Dell funny animal books or whatever -- can possibly hold the same (or greater) import.

 

I have not admitted that super heroes have "dominated" since 1960

 

- dominated what? The narrow comic book store scene, sure

 

the real world, heck no

 

Circulations for a long time now have been such a pale shadow of their formal self.

 

I wonder what the sales and dollar figures were for say Peanuts books in Schultz's prime

 

Or Calvin & Hobbes books - Watterson is a multi millionaire

 

Schultz died worth something like 3 billion dollars

[BLBcomics-migration]

ok so your saying what? that superman and action 1 are not the single most important elements of comics. if not, what then?

 

There is no one single most important aspect of comics

[BLBcomics-migration]

Bob--you have to eventually draw a line and say

"This is It"..time to stop researching

you can do research til the cows come home..

the tough part is organizing and distilling the data...

 

You probably need to sell one of your Grails,lock

yourself in the basement and Get It Started....

 

Inquiring Minds need to know !!!

 

I pretty much stopped gathering research like i was - i have a LOT already

 

I do not have any Grails worth a lot of big bucks - that aspect of my life was washed away when Bets of Two Worlds' warehouse was destroyed back in 1986 - a million comic books were destroyed and got away from me.

 

I have spent the last bunch of years rebuilding from almost nothing, 20 years of my previous life wiped out, gone,

 

For me to sit still for 6 months and finish this book, i need around $50K to pay bills. Remember, we all live in the real world - and my kids might disown me if i stop helping them, as fathers are supposed to do, as they are college age

[EastEnd]

 

I see what you're saying... I think the disagreement is over how to define "comic book." It sounds like you have assumed a very expansive definition that covers all remotely related types of illustration. I think this is overreaching, but that's just my view. To me, comic strips, platinum age books, etc. are not comic books... they're steps in the evolution towards comic books... much like a chimp is not a human (though we apparently share over 99% of comparable DNA).

 

Also, while I acknowledge that there are, and have been many different genres of comic books (I personally enjoy horror comics much more than superhero), superheros were uniquely born from comic books and superheroes are by far the genre that comic books are most associated with today (and undoubtedly for most periods since Action #1 showed up). If you asked 100 people on the street to name a comic book character, an overwhelming majority will name a superhero.

 

Regarding the comic book market today, well guess what... circulations of ALL periodicals are way down. People don't read paper periodicals like they used to... not with the internet becoming so pervasive. But folks have been shelling out a lot of bucks to go see superhero movies. And if you read a review of a superhero movie, it will be described as a "comic book" movie. Can't say you'd see that same description with a new Ducks movie, or Popeye, or Tarzan, or Buster Brown, etc..

 

You said you see what i am talking about - yet i have never been talking about an "expansive definition that covers all remotely related types of illustration."

 

That is silly

 

i have been researching and have developed proof of comic strips appearing in magazines and book form - with that first comic book dating to 1842, a mantra i will keep repeating because it is simple truth. I do not call single panel illustrations "comic strips", but they can be comics

 

and i have been discussing all along, since i got sucked into this thread, the comics industry in America.

 

I vastly prefer hard cover comic books - that is how i am collecting Will Eisner's Spirit and also compiling my early Superman & Batman stories - in hard cover comic books

 

I consider New Fun 1 thru 6 comic books, yet the narrow definition some here wish to cling to would preclude them form being comic books

 

Neither would the first Jumbo or Master comic books following the view of some

 

What i would like to see here therefore is a definition of a "book"

 

Not calling the Plat Cupples & Leon comic books is silly, sorry - and i have never called comic strips (as in the news paper variety i assume you mean) comic books either. Why bring this up when i have never stated thusly?

 

Re super hero being the defining view of comic book, Archie comics sell very well, among a great many others. The general public thinks in terms of comic books as something for kids along the lines of Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, Archie, etc.

 

That is why you get wing nuts who like to see comic book store people prosecuted when comic books have adult nature stories in them. Other wise we would not see the Comic Legal Defense Fund

 

If you asked 100 people off the street, most would say "they still make those things?"

 

Yes, i know fully well that circulations on ALL periodicals are down - as are sales of most anything paper print media these days. That is a point of sorts:

 

the super hero movie bringing in big bucks is a more recent phenomena - and this discussion ranges back 160+ years. These same super hero movies have not translated into increased readership of comic books. I do wonder what your point was

 

I respect the body of research you have undertaken in forming your view but I think we just have a fundamental difference of opinion as to what is and isn't a comic book (as that term is commonly defined by the community at large). Doesn't sound like that difference of opinion is going to get bridged if a 190 pages of posts hasn't done it.

 

Re: genres, you can argue all you want about Archies, funny animals and so on. No genre is as obviously associated with comic books as superheros though and I think you're just being contrarian to argue against that. Your point about "wing nuts" applies equally to superhero comics.

 

Some people on the street might say "they still make those" but you're just misdirecting my point there... most will still follow up and name a superhero when asked to name a comic book character (though I will concede that Archie will likely get a few nods).

 

In your view, the discussion traces back 160 years; in my view it only goes back to the mid-1930s -- again we just fundamentally differ on the definition of "comic book." IMHO, that material published prior to the 1930s may have some evolutionary relationship to the modern comic book... but they're no more comic books than a calculator is a computer.

 

If CBG is to be believed, comic book sales are in fact increasing... I believe the highest since 1996(?) according to last CBG I read. And Marvel and DC revenues from publishing are growing at a healthy pace. Not bad, considering periodical publishing overall is facing serious challenges these days.

 

My point regarding the movies was to illustrate that, unlike most of the other characters you mentioned, superhero movies are viewed as "comic book" movies, furthering the notion that superheros are, and have been, the dominant comic book genre.

[BLBcomics-migration]

What SINGLE comic book contributed more to the comics industry/hobby/pop culture than Action #1?

 

That is all I want to know.

 

There is no one single comic book which contributed the most to the comics industry

 

For example, Bringing Up Father #1 in 1919 sold as many copies as Superman #1 (around 900,000) whcih translates into almost 4 times as many Action 31 issues that were printed, and not all of those sold

 

Superman is a cultural icon, of course it is, but super heroes are simply one genre of many which have sold very well in America over the decades.

[EastEnd]

If we assume that the modern comic book era began in say 1935, that's 71 years from then to 2006. You admit that superheros have dominated since 1960 and let's assume for discussion that superheros also dominated in the war years... the so-called golden age (let's put it at 1940 - 1945). That would mean that superheros have dominated comic books for 51 of the 71 years that the modern comic book has existed... over 70%. I don't see how any other genre -- Dell funny animal books or whatever -- can possibly hold the same (or greater) import.

 

I have not admitted that super heroes have "dominated" since 1960

 

- dominated what? The narrow comic book store scene, sure

 

the real world, heck no

 

Circulations for a long time now have been such a pale shadow of their formal self.

 

I wonder what the sales and dollar figures were for say Peanuts books in Schultz's prime

 

Or Calvin & Hobbes books - Watterson is a multi millionaire

 

Schultz died worth something like 3 billion dollars

 

My friend, you said above that you've purchased thousands of COMIC BOOK collections and that those collections that dated from 1960 forward contained a majority of superhero comics -- not Peanuts comics or Calvin & Hobbs comics -- SUPERHERO comics.

[BLBcomics-migration]

I respect the body of research you have undertaken in forming your view but I think we just have a fundamental difference of opinion as to what is and isn't a comic book (as that term is commonly defined by the community at large). Doesn't sound like that difference of opinion is going to get bridged if a 190 pages of posts hasn't done it.

 

Re: genres, you can argue all you want about Archies, funny animals and so on. No genre is as obviously associated with comic books as superheros though and I think you're just being contrarian to argue against that. Your point about "wing nuts" applies equally to superhero comics.

 

Some people on the street might say "they still make those" but you're just misdirecting my point there... most will still follow up and name a superhero when asked to name a comic book character (though I will concede that Archie will likely get a few nods).

 

In your view, the discussion traces back 160 years; in my view it only goes back to the mid-1930s -- again we just fundamentally differ on the definition of "comic book." IMHO, that material published prior to the 1930s may have some evolutionary relationship to the modern comic book... but they're no more comic books than a calculator is a computer.

 

If CBG is to be believed, comic book sales are in fact increasing... I believe the highest since 1996(?) according to last CBG I read. And Marvel and DC revenues from publishing are growing at a healthy pace. Not bad, considering periodical publishing overall is facing serious challenges these days.

 

My point regarding the movies was to illustrate that, unlike most of the other characters you mentioned, superhero movies are viewed as "comic book" movies, furthering the notion that superheros are, and have been, the dominant comic book genre.

 

Ok, so i retailed in a couple multiple comic book store operations moving millions of comic books of all kinds from 1972-1994 - and then got out of that merry go round downward spiral

 

Please define what a book is, please, since a comic book has to be, to some here, at least, just a stapled folded over pamphlet - that is what you mean, yes?

 

I disagree with such a narrow view of what a comic book is

 

All those DC archives? hard cover comic books

 

All those Peanuts books issued since the 1950s, they be comic books to me and many others

 

The Garfield comic books which began in 1978 are comic books - and they sold millions of them

 

Well, you can say comic books which are not folded over soft paper stapled pamphlets are not comic books, but i think you are wrong

 

WHY are "folded over soft paper stapled pamphlets" the only version of what we can call comic book?

[BLBcomics-migration]

My friend, you said above that you've purchased thousands of COMIC BOOK collections and that those collections that dated from 1960 forward contained a majority of superhero comics -- not Peanuts comics or Calvin & Hobbs comics -- SUPERHERO comics.

 

Yes, key word is purchased

 

I have seen plenty of collections of newer stuff i do not buy which contain a lot of non superhero stuff - and by newer i mean 1960 up

 

And these days i do not buy much of anything at all past the mid 1970s

[EastEnd]

I respect the body of research you have undertaken in forming your view but I think we just have a fundamental difference of opinion as to what is and isn't a comic book (as that term is commonly defined by the community at large). Doesn't sound like that difference of opinion is going to get bridged if a 190 pages of posts hasn't done it.

 

Re: genres, you can argue all you want about Archies, funny animals and so on. No genre is as obviously associated with comic books as superheros though and I think you're just being contrarian to argue against that. Your point about "wing nuts" applies equally to superhero comics.

 

Some people on the street might say "they still make those" but you're just misdirecting my point there... most will still follow up and name a superhero when asked to name a comic book character (though I will concede that Archie will likely get a few nods).

 

In your view, the discussion traces back 160 years; in my view it only goes back to the mid-1930s -- again we just fundamentally differ on the definition of "comic book." IMHO, that material published prior to the 1930s may have some evolutionary relationship to the modern comic book... but they're no more comic books than a calculator is a computer.

 

If CBG is to be believed, comic book sales are in fact increasing... I believe the highest since 1996(?) according to last CBG I read. And Marvel and DC revenues from publishing are growing at a healthy pace. Not bad, considering periodical publishing overall is facing serious challenges these days.

 

My point regarding the movies was to illustrate that, unlike most of the other characters you mentioned, superhero movies are viewed as "comic book" movies, furthering the notion that superheros are, and have been, the dominant comic book genre.

 

Ok, so i retailed in a couple multiple comic book store operations moving millions of comic books of all kinds from 1972-1994 - and then got out of that merry go round downward spiral

 

Please define what a book is, please, since a comic book has to be, to some here, at least, just a stapled folded over pamphlet - that is what you mean, yes?

 

I disagree with such a narrow view of what a comic book is

 

All those DC archives? hard cover comic books

 

All those Peanuts books issued since the 1950s, they be comic books to me and many others

 

The Garfield comic books which began in 1978 are comic books - and they sold millions of them

 

Well, you can say comic books which are not folded over soft paper stapled pamphlets are not comic books, but i think you are wrong

 

WHY are "folded over soft paper stapled pamphlets" the only version of what we can call comic book?

 

Let's see... Webster defines "comic book" as -- "a magazine presenting stories in cartoon style." That would seem to correspond with the common view of what a comic book is (and eliminate the hardcovers you keep talking about). If that definition is good enough for Websters; it's good enough for me.

[ciorac]

What SINGLE comic book contributed more to the comics industry/hobby/pop culture than Action #1?

 

That is all I want to know.

 

There is no one single comic book which contributed the most to the comics industry

 

For example, Bringing Up Father #1 in 1919 sold as many copies as Superman #1 (around 900,000) whcih translates into almost 4 times as many Action 31 issues that were printed, and not all of those sold

 

Superman is a cultural icon, of course it is, but super heroes are simply one genre of many which have sold very well in America over the decades.

 

The artful dodger strikes again. He still evades the central question of this entire thread.

 

He quickly cites individual sales numbers again.

 

For the reading challenged the question AGAIN Bob, this time put your glasses on so you don't misread it yet again...

 

What SINGLE comic book contributed more to the comics industry/hobby/pop culture THAN Action #1?

 

Bringing up Father #1 didn't contribute diddly-poo to the industry/hobby/pop culture.

 

So which book contributed MORE than ACTION #1 to these areas? Which ONE?

 

Can you answer in simple direct terms?

 

Title and Issue Number ONLY PLEASE.

 

That is a simple request of a man who purportedly has done more research than any other human on the face of the earth into the history of comics. If you can't even answer that one fundamental question, then how are we supposed to believe any of the other facts that you cite?

 

You seem to think that many books contributed more to the history/hobby/pop culture than Action #1, so it should be a simple matter to name one. Even if you don't think the one you name is the most important, as you have indicated there is no most important (presposterous).

 

Which one is it?

 

If you can't name it and support it, then just admit it. No problem, we all know anyway. So stop trying to be evasive and contrary about it. Saying the obvious doesn't diminish in any way all of the work you have done on victorian and platinum books. It is just being honest.

[BLBcomics-migration]

Let's see... Webster defines "comic book" as -- "a magazine presenting stories in cartoon style." That would seem to correspond with the common view of what a comic book is (and eliminate the hardcovers you keep talking about). If that definition is good enough for Websters; it's good enough for me.

 

My Webster's New World, which lives next to my Mac, says: "a paper booklet of extended comic strips"

 

Seems Webster changes definitions also

 

I also note my Webster's defines a comic strip thusly: "a series of cartoons, as in a newspaper, usually telling a humorous or adventure story"

 

others (not me) here have defined comic strip differently as in must have word balloons among other features

 

so, Webster's is infallible ?