Talk:American comic book

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Comics This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
??? This article has no rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

This article was created to address concerns that the comic book article was too US-centric. See the discussion on that 'talk' page if interested ike9898 16:48, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Discussion RE: This paragraph

The comic book saw a decline from a World War II high but has increased drastically during the last 30 years. This has been caused by a number of factors, including the advent of the underground comics, the influence from and rise in popularity of manga and the recognition of the comic medium among academics and literature critics not just as trivial childrens' entertainment, but as a serious form of literature and art.

I'm not sure the facts hold up above, and in any case they're not given or cited. From my understanding, there is only a core of about 100,000 readers, and this is down from even the early 1990s when a comic could still sell a million copies. I'm not sure there's been a million-seller in a while, so this seems a decrease rather than an increase.

The advent of of underground comics was 40 years ago, not 30, and either number of years makes me wonder how relevant their influence is to present recognigition as literature/art. Wouldn't the rise of naturalistic works such as Harvey Pekar's, the Hernandez Bros. and "Ghost World", from about the '80s on, be the more relevant influence?

Lastly, and as much as I like and respect manga, I'd have to question whether it contributes or actually takes away from the literature/art equation. Even a technical and aesthetic breakthrough like "Akira" has had mixed critical response on its story, and the overwhelming majority of manga titles I believe are aimed at youngsters, along the lines of "Sailor Moon". (Certainly I've read that's true in Japan.) I wonder if it's the European works ("Dylan Dog", Moebius. et al.) that might be more relevant here. Could we discuss? -- Tenebrae 13:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that point about naturalistic artists' influence is significant. I recall that Pekar and Los Bros Hernandez were referenced in most of the articles I read about indie comics in the 1980s. Both brought in new readers by "crossing over" into literary, jazz, and punk subcultures, putting the comics artform within other contexts. LBH aren't mentioned, either, and they were some of the most popular artists back then. Also, Spiegelman, LBH, and Pekar were all self-conscious about their work as related to literature, and they would discuss it as such, and to different degrees, strove to expand the artform. They also saw themselves as the next stage in underground comix. (Crumb also did a number of autobiographical stories at the time. Joe Sacco also influenced the form with his journalism.)

Manga's influences were on two fronts. There were a number of works that were naturalistic and got popularized as reprints in America, however, they aren't really considered mainstream. The "anime" style was far more popular, but what it seemed to bring to the form was more complex storytelling and some new twists fantasy and science-fiction themes. I think, in Japan, there's a division between these two types of manga.

Finally, the public perception of comic books isn't "trivial children's entertainment" but as a fantasy genre for young boys. Manga hasn't changed that very much, if at all. The comic "words-and-pictures" artform, however, has a measure of respect in the art world and in the academic spheres. It's holding its own, and the proponents have been doing their work. This should be recognized. -johnk 66.245.193.131 09:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bronze Age

I added a Bronze Age section which I'm surprised didn't already exist. Unfortunately, some of it ended up being redundant with the Silver Age article, but I felt the Bronze Age was too important to just omit. Other people can fix the redundancy if they wish. Ken Arromdee 30 June 2005 02:34 (UTC)

Having a look, it appears the bronze age does exist, however on wikipedia its discussed as the modern age of comics. Do people think the modern age should be broken out into the bronze age and the modern age, or should the bronze age remain a part of the modern age in discussion here? If it is decided to break it out, then the articles need to be better edited to reflect that, particularly Modern Age of Comic Books Steve block 30 June 2005 07:16 (UTC)

Even this article pretty much associates the Modern Age with the mid-1980's, except for that paragraph about the direct market. I've never seen 'Modern Age' or any variations used to describe the period from the 1970s to the present. Ken Arromdee 30 June 2005 14:07 (UTC)

Um, did you actually have a look at the article Modern Age of Comic Books, to which Bronze Age of Comic Books redirects? It looks to me, especially in this article, that here on wikipedia the consensus so far has been to define the silver age and the golden age, but to leave any periods afterwards to be defined as the modern age. Whether that consensus is right or wrong I do not know, but I think there should at least be consistency across all the articles that refer to this period. Steve block 30 June 2005 15:43 (UTC)

I did a Google search and it does seem that Modern Age can be used for the post-1970 period. On the other hand, much of this is use by dealers, who have less motivation to distinguish the Bronze and Modern Ages because they don't differ in price much. (On the gripping hand, most Google pages dealing with comics seem to be related to dealers.)

Even then, redirecting Bronze Age to Modern Age doesn't make sense if you're also defining Modern Age as 1970 to present. If Modern means post-1970 then Modern includes Bronze, but Modern isn't the same as Bronze.

On Google, "Modern Age" -"bronze age" "comic books" gives me 11100 references and "Bronze Age" "comic books" gives me 32100. Ken Arromdee 30 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)

All this talk of "XXX ages" though they were set terms accepted by a consensus really isn't a serious treatment of the topic of comic history. First off, searching Google for just the words contained in the title doens't prove anything. If you want to use these kinds of names, you need to show that there is a very clear consensus among serious comic historians about these terms. I've looked at serious literature about comics and so far I can't find a trace of agreement with the terminology. Secondly, all this "Gold" and "Platinum" and whathaveyou really smacks of peacock terms and it makes the articles look a lot less serious than they really are.
Mind you, I'm not criticizing the content, which looks great, it's just that this kind of era naming isn't compatible with serious history writing whether it be about medieval castles or comics. You need to give these article more neutral and less whimsical names that reflect more than just your own views on the topic.
Peter Isotalo 06:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd care to peruse Superhero Comics of the Golden Age: The Illustrated History (Taylor History of Comics S.) or The Comic Book Heroes: From the Silver Age to the Present or The Silver Age of Comic Book Art or The Silver Age of Comic Book Art for starters. Steve block talk 16:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
One book does not make a consensus. There are "Golden Ages" of pretty much every aspect of history, but very few of them are set terms in themselves. You need to show that a majority of comic historians agree on this term. The same most certainly goes for "Platinum" and "Silver" ages.
Peter Isotalo 17:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Whilst I can, and would normally be willing to provide more sources, there seems to be little point as you seem unwilling to accept or consider them. Please also advise me as to where in Wiki policy it specifies that a consensus of sources is required before one can input datum. Steve block talk 16:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
We're talking past each other here. I'm not trying to ignore that some or even a lot of sources use this kind of terminology, but I just am very skeptical that it should be considered encyclopedic. There's a problem of POV, since "Golden Age" implies very distinct connotation of superiority; an age that is undisputably better and more prestigious than previous or following periods. While it's certainly valid to explain that many refer to certain periods as "a golden age" or even "the Golden Age", it's an entirely different matter to actually name articles this way. And where does "Platinum Age" come from? Is this used in any literature at all and what is it supposed to mean? Are all comic book periods per definition better the older they are?
What I'm asking for here is wide consensus among experts and aficionados about terminology. You don't need to start counting source or Google hits, just give a proper thought to how this affects the neutrality of the articles.
Peter Isotalo 18:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
See, I object to the point about encyclopedic. There doesn't seem to be an agreed standard of encyclopedic, it simply equates to POV, yours or mine. As to using the names themselves in section headers and articles, your best bet is to RFC then. They are established terms, but I can see your point and would not personally object to section headings which use dates with the terms mentioned in the text as used by [insert sources].
Per Platinum age, I'll give you three Platinum age cites, google would give you more but I'm sure you know that:
  • Beerbohm, Robert L. 1997. The American Comic Book: 1897-1932. The Beginning: The Platinum Age. in The Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide, 27th ed. by Robert M. Overstreet, New York: Avon Books and Timonium, MD: Gemstone Publishing: 1-15
  • Star Collector: Robert Beerbohm - Platinum before gold. Diamond Dialogue (January): 48-49
  • Collectortimes.com
It's a recent term Beerbohm has coined but seems to have become adopted by comics scholars, if you need further confirmation your best bet is to join and ask at the comics scholars mailing list.
If you need to cite terms, the comics research bibliography will probably be useful to you. Yes the naming conventions are based upon being superior. Bronze Age and Platinum Age are recent terms, I'm not sure of the coining of the first two terms though. Steve block talk 19:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
By the way, to what do you refer when you say you have access to serious comics literature? Be aware Sabin for one is thought sloppy in places. Do you have access to any Kunzle, his work is reputedly the best, but sadly out of print. Steve block talk 19:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
My vote goes to have a standalone Bronze Age entry. 1976 is 30 years ago; that's far more than separates the Golden from the Silver, and there's a highly recognizeable difference in style, theme, conventions, and accepted industry standards between the post-Silver Age '70s, and today. Here's an example: An interracial romantic kiss was never done to my knowledge pre-1970s. It's common today in the Modern Age. What was in-between? Its controversial first occurrance in the Bronze Age, when Don McGregor and P. Craig Russell pioneered it in the "Killraven" feature in Marvel's Amazing Adventures. I give just this one of many possible examples by to indicate the demarcated step-process between Silver Age and now: Between taboo and commonplace, there's a distinct territory where boundaries are tested, and conventions redefined.
Related to this change and distinction is the early-70s updating of the Comics Code, the first since its inception in 1954. The subsequent initial blossoming of creators newly liberated in certain respects — testing what these new liberties meant — marks a different era than today, when standards are much more established.
The Bronze Age, I'd suggest, also has a pantheon distinct from the Silver and Modern Age. Creators such as Gerber, Englehart, McGregor, Gulacy, etc., while certainly active and producing good work, had the same resonance, fan-following, etc., that Bendis, Millar, Moore, etc. do today. While there's a cycle to audience likes and dislikes, you can compare this to the movies following the start of MPAA ratings in 1968 -- there were 1970s stars and directors like Burt Reynolds, Peter Bogdanovich, Bob Rafelson, Faye Dunaway, etc., who are still around and doing quality quieter work, but the feel of movies in the 1970s, just after the studio system broke down and filmmakers were newly liberated in certain respects — testing what these new liberties meant — and marking a different era than today. -- Tenebrae 15:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
As someone who grew up and started reading comics in the 1970's, I definitely believe there is a distinction between Bronze age and "modern" age comics. The writing and characterization changed rather drastically in the mid/late 80's, from a more naturalistic/realistic style, which showed both the highs and lows of the characters, to a stylized, grim and gritty, joyless, almost cyberpunk style, with many "heroes" revealed as either corrupt or as tortured victims of abuse. Compare the Dark Phoenix Saga, or the early New Teen Titans, to something like The Dark Knight Returns or Grendel. Now, of course, this is all my own subjective opinion; but then so is the difference between the other comic Ages. I don't agree that "serious comic historians" should be the only ones to define the terms or ages used in the article; this smacks of non-neutral POV, by rendering a value judgement on who is Serious and who isn't. The terms Golden, Silver and (to a lesser extent) Bronze Ages are in frequent use among comic book professionals and comic dealers; is their use less valid than armchair historians?

Noclevername 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point would be better take if you weren't an anonymous IP. Not registering can be perceived as a way of avoiding accountability. But read on through the last paragraph; this isn't as bad a posting as it sounds.
Comics scholarship does exist, in that professors teach it in colleges, and in that journalist/authors such as Ron Goulart and Les Daniels are hardly "armchair" historians. I could be wrong, but I detect an anti-intellectualist bias in your statements. Yes, someone who studies and writes or teaches about a topic is more authoritative than someone who doesn't. And in any case, the phrase we usually find is "during the period that fans and historians called the Golden Age of comic books", etc., so fan opinion is note.
And in any event, the point is moot. If the term Bronze Age is in common useage — and, yes, personally, I very much think it is, so I do agree with your in principle — then it won't be hard to find citations. Simple as pie, everybody goes home happy and verified! --Tenebrae 02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(Yeah, I'd typed in the dashes and then forgot the tildes! 30 seconds later ... I was too late!) -- Tenebrae 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Not anti-intellectual bias (there's too much of that these days), just not wanting to eliminate pragmatic sources as opposed to scholarly ones. This is essentially a pop-culture subject, and the common usages of dealers (and, yes, fans) should be taken into account, I believe. Sorry if I didn't make my emphasis clear before; I'm not denigrating historians, I just wasn't aware of the extent of comic book scholarship. Noclevername 09:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
All good; and yeah, I agree with you completely. If you haven't already got it, ask for Gerard Jones' Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book (Basic Books, 2004; trade paperback ISBN 0-465-03657-0) for a present. What a great read!
Now let's find us some cites, brother!--Tenebrae 16:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marvel

[edit] Marvel Comics

As I recall, in 1961, it was still Timely Comics.--K D Faber

In early 1961, publisher Martin Goodman's Magazine Management Company had begun using the "MC" logo, for "Marvel Comics". See Atlas Comics (1950s), which talks about the transition and the cover logos from Timely to Atlas to Marvel. - Hope this helps. Tenebrae 15:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


In your "Golden Age" section there is a typo. The sentence reads:

In February 1935, National Periodical Publications published New Fun Comics, which contained the first original characters and stories in the mew format.

I believe you meant "...new format"

Mason 23:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Mason Emerson

[edit] Titles of American comic book and British comic

I'm not sure where to post this; the issue is argued on Talk:British comic, but I'm mostly concerned about the moving of American comic book to, and back from, American comics. Steve, I really appreciate the work you've done on these articles, they look great. But I share Peter Isotalo's concern about the titles of American comic book and British comic. It seems to me it would be a good thing to address Peter's carefully argued points fully, rather than refer to a consensus that, well, I don't know exactly where it's expressed. Peter is the main contributor to some great Featured articles, and if you're serious about getting British comic up to Featured standard, you could hardly do better than draw him in to help. In other words, c'mon, a little elasticity here...?
The title of American comic book came about, if I understand the note at the top of the page, because it was an offshoot of Comic book. Maybe it's time to reconsider the title on its merits, without being influenced by its origin? Best, Bishonen | talk 19:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

My point is that these articles are to discuss the publication formats of the "comic book" and the "comic". With regards to British comic, it had long been at British comics and I had edited it as such until User:Nohat moved it to British comic. I weighed up the move in my mind, and upon creating Ally Sloper's Half Holiday, came to the realisation that the article is about the publication history of the British comic, and not about British comics, the form of comics as practised in the United Kingdom. If you read this article, you can quickly see that the same is true, this article is about the publication history of the American comic book. I have attempted to point out to Peter that these articles are not about the form as specific to their respective countries, but are about the publication formats. Articles regarding the form would also have to cover newspaper strips, graphic novels, caricaturists, cartoonists and comic magazine or comic books. As you can surely concede, British comic and American comic book do not do so, and therefore do not discuss the form. I do not object to pages discussing the form, I would welcome their creation. However, these two pages are not the pages Peter believes them to be. It leaves me with the impression that their is a lack of understanding of the terms "comic", "comics" and "comic book". He has already attempted to argue that a "comic", a publication format, and the British term analagous to "comic book" is equal to the artform McCloud has defined as "comics" and which Eisner defined as "sequential art". This is simply incorrect, and any attempt to persuade him otherwise has been doomed to failure, even after I provided him with sources.
I am offended at the suggestion I have no understanding of the merits of both sides of the argument. I would hope my explanation above would quickly disabuse people of that notion. I am also worried that you argue we should not be unduly influenced by the origin of this article. Let us not disregard the fact that this page grew from Comic book, a publication format, and not from Comics, the art form.
Further to that, surely the article, being about the American comic book, and not American comics, deserves to be at American comic book. This is the common usage term, the least confusing term and also properly reflects the merits of the article best. (added Steve block talk 15:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC))
Further note, "The Comics Code" had no impact on American comic strips, only the American comic book and that superheroes only dominate the comic book, not the artform. I would hope these examples would show why this is an article on the comic book and not the form.
As to Peter's experience in Featured Articles, whilst I respect that I would have to wonder how it helps him understand terms and edit articles regarding the field of comics. In fact, to go further, I have already been slightly worried at the lack of research he showed on another page (comics unrelated) in deciding the older of two terms without any external research. Steve block talk 13:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I am also worried at your praise of my work on this article. A quick glance at the edit history should show I have put no work into this one and I can only extend your praise and add mine to the people who have worked extremely hard on it. Steve block talk
And as to sourcing my argument, please advise me as to the viability of doing so when Peter so willingly disregards my sources and references as above in the Bronze Age section? Steve block talk 16:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, if all you ask is that we start a separate American comics, then I'm more than happy to oblige. I thought you were just generally opposed to writing about comics from a perspective that wasn't specically medium-related. I'll start working on it as soon as possible.
Peter Isotalo 18:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I would welcome such pages and apologise if I have given any other impression. It has long been a goal of WP:CMC to have such pages. Thank you, that sounds perfect. Steve block talk 18:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The list of significant american comic books removal

I removed the list since it is against our neutral point of view policy, and especially per Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms and Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Steve block Talk 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/e/Talk%7EAmerican_comic_book_b513.html"