Undergrounds, 60s books, etc for sale
Jonathan Wayne
memorabilia, etc. Many unusual and rare pieces. Although it will be quite a
while before I can catalog and offer everything for sale, I am trying to find
folks that are interested in these categories.
If you send me your email address, I can start sending off lists of items. Some
stuff may be auctioned via eBay as well.
Also feel free to send me any want lists, especially underground comix related
items published before 1995.
Thanks,
jon
-----
Jonathan Wayne
jwa...@NOSPAMinjersey.com
(please remove the NOSPAM in the return address)
ronan
<spam snipped>
please do not post commercial messages in a discussion group. as your
headers show, you know that rec.arts.comics.marketplacwe is the
appropriate place in this hierarchy for the dissemination of For Sale
posts, NOT rac.alternative. Please stop sending spam to this group.
Thank you.
ronan
John F Ronan
every spammer who uses that line I would be a money bin busting fool. Hey
dweeb, ALL FOR SALE POSTS ARE OFF TOPIC IN THIS GROUP. NO EXCEPTIONS! All
rationales for said commercial posts are either from ignorant spammers (pond
scum of the Net) or those who attempt to justify the greed and ignorance of
spammers. I been in this newsgroup a lot longer than you have asshole, and
seen asshole spammers come and go, but usually with enough public shaming
these fucking losers keep their posts where they belong, in
rec.arts.comics.marketplace. and besides, the majority here thinks spammers
suck, so you won't get any sympathy from them. now go away, spam-lover.
ronan
KILLCITY69 wrote:
> >Jonathan Wayne wrote:
> ><spam snipped>
Please stop sending spam to this group.
> >Thank you.
> >
> >ronan
> Ronan, you uptight little prick:
> This post was relevant to the beat NG and I was interested in reading it.
> Please go away and bother another Usenet group. I think you are desperately in
> need of some kind of personal attention. If you can't get laid and your friends
> don't like you, maybe you should go home to your mother.
> Gene
> "Win some, lose some, it's all the same to me."
> Motorhead
Leon Briggs
I have no problem with reading on-
target ads,
and if the rules say elsewise,
well,
who wrote the rules and
what gave them the right to write the rules?
"Come visit my sex site" ads
here would be inappropriate.
"I want to sell my old comics and underground
publications" is perfectly appropriate.
so really Ronan,
get bent,
get
laid,
get lost,
get out of jail free,
get a life,
get a clue,
get
something.
Smooches!
-**** Posted from Supernews, Discussions Start Here(tm) ****-
http://www.supernews.com/ - Host to the the World's Discussions & Usenet
Duncan
Duncan
ronan
>
> The ad was on-target for the group.
>
NO ADS! PERIOD. you wanna read ads, go to rec.arts.comics.marketplace. you
got it in your headers, so you know what it is. see you got
rec.arts.books.marketplace in your headers as well, so you must know what
rec.arts.books.collecting is? see much non-advertisement in that group? didn't
think so. a usenet group quickly becomes a spam death trap when "on-topic ads"
proliferate in a discussion group. ANY advertisng in this news group is spam,
and as such should be fought, tooth and nail. most come here to read, talk
about, argue over alternative comics, not to be bombarded by advertising. if I
wanna buyt a comic, or a book, I go to the appropriate space,
rec.arts.comics.marketplace. that is why it is there.
"the rules" are common courtesies, accepted conventions, to delineate
discourse communities. spammers, and the naive shitheads who support them,
pollute the group, bringing down the discourse to the basest level: "Buy My
Stuff". one message becomes 27 messages, becomes 2000 messages, but even one
message alonbe is pollution. why should we have to put up with it?. no law
says a spammer who wants to shill comics in here can't, but that same absence
of law or formality also allows me (forces me) to call them what they are,
greedy assholes whose very presence is an insult to those of us who want to
discuss comics.
so smooches back, and let me ask you this, do you have anything to add to the
discussion of alternative comics, or are you merely going to argue in support
of adverising in this group?
ronan
(why do all spammers use the "get a life" response? what is more absent of
life than hawking comics on the usenet?)
Leon Briggs
smoke a joint and relax.
I am extremely
sensitive
to unwanted advertising.
I've written articles about it.
There
are ads
on every saleable surface in America,
ads in my email every
morning,
ads everywhere.
It's numbing
and dehumanizing
and I'm
against it.
This "spam" you object to,
however,
is nothing.
It's
the equivalent of stapling a "yard sale" sign to a telephone pole.
Yet
you were "bombarded" by this?
You may fight this sort of "spam"
tooth
and nail
to the death
hither and yawn
near and far
here and there
loud
and clear.
Enjoy the battle, sir.
I hope you have some energy left
for the real problems
of day-to-day living.
Have another smooch.
Further, I am not a friend of Mike Sitz.
But also not necessarily an
enemy.
Who is Mike Sitz?
Will the real Mike Sitz please stand up?
And
lastly,
you ask,
have I anything to add
comics,
group?
Rarely have I felt so warmly welcomed.
Have
another cybersmooch.
Seriously.
I read this group because it interests
me.
I am against advertising in this group.
I don't consider Johnathan
Wayne's post to really be advertising.
And, oh,
there are more rules?
Is there also,
in addition to the "no spam" rule,
a rule requiring me to
"add to the discussion"?
I will add something else,
trust me,
when I
feel I have something to add.
For now,
I've already said
what I wanted
to say.
Shall I say it again?
Why not.
The original post in this
thread,
though 'spam' by loose definition,
was on target enough to be of
interest to me,
and probably to many readers in the group.
I do not
object.
But,
I hope I do not object
not as loudly
and not as rudely
as the man who has objected.
Peace to the cottages!
Smooches for
everyone!
-**** Posted from Supernews, Discussions Start Here(tm) ****-
ronan
>
> Goodness gracious, man,
>
> smoke a joint and relax.
>
> I am extremely
> sensitive
>
> to unwanted advertising.
and it shows.
> There
> are ads > on every saleable surface in America,
> ads in my email every morning, ads everywhere. It's numbing and dehumanizing
>
> and I'm
> against it.
except of course when it is for a product you like.
> It's
> the equivalent of stapling a "yard sale" sign to a telephone pole.
no, it is the equivalent of a telephone solicitor interrupting your dinner. do
you enjoy that? or is that too a dehumanization.
> I hope you have some energy left
> for the real problems of day-to-day living.
eating, shitting, smoking fatties, reading comics, teaching comics, fucking,
oh yeah, got plenty of time for that. or would the real problems be the
incessant accumulation of capitalist ideology into every facet of discourse,
the naturalization of commodification as "inevitable" and all the attendant
problems it brings?
>
> Who is Mike Sitz?
The twisted doppelganger of the Leon Briggs of the world. ask over in alt.fan.karl.malden.nose
>
> I read this group because it interests
> me.
> I am against advertising in this group.
> I don't consider Johnathan
> Wayne's post to really be advertising.
well then you have proved that old maxim true: "better to shut your mouth and
be thought an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt."
more rules?
FAQ's, look into it.
> I hope I do not object
> not as loudly and not as rudely
> as the man who has objected.
>
you want rude, try this. Leon, you are a fucking idiot. get your punk ass
bitch poetry out of here. Buying your logical assertions and poesia out of a
Toys R Us catalogue is just not the way to get ahead in this world. smoke a
joint and try to get this simple tautology into your tiny little cranium:
advertising is advertising.
more smooches to the bad poet,
ronan
p._bronson
objection to an on-topic announcement of oldies for sale.
ronan
>
> What's the big deal worth getting worked up over? I for one have no
> objection to an on-topic announcement of oldies for sale.
>
from becoming a vast wasteland of spam, kinda like your experiences with
alt.zines. remember when, on march 3 of 1998, you posted this to someone
who was spamming and (crossposting their spam) in alt.zines:
quoting P.Bronson
"i never said i didn't approve. send out whatever messages you want to
send. god bless the u.s.a., that is your right, and it's my right to
be bored silly by it and by about 95% of the vast wasteland that is
alt.zines."
so the point is this, by failing to stand up to spammers (anyone who
posts a commercial message in a dsicussion group is, imho, a spammer) a
discussion group quickly becomes what you so aptly call "a vast
wasteland." discussions of Zap #14, or Elvis Shrugged, or favorite
artists, or recent releases, all gets flooded out by "Buy My Comics."
You yourself have seen this occur in alt.zines, and now you call it down
upon the heads of raca readers. well ain't that just swell. if spammers
are going to spam, then why can't I twist and shout: Spammers Are Pond
Scum!!! Go Away Pond Scum!!! ain't that my right, to not only be annoyed
by spam, but fight against it?
maybe we could just have a cancelbot forward all the spam to
p.br...@mailexcite.com ? that way you wouldn't miss out on any
exciting comic sale offers?
ronan
Leon Briggs
Dear, dear Ronan,
You are on a quest.
It is an
heroic battle.
But before you strap on
your strap-on
breastplate of
righteousness
this morning
let us briefly dialogue,
if dialogue is
possible:
There
are ads > on every saleable surface in
America, ads in my email every morning, ads everywhere. It's numbing and
dehumanizing and I'm
against it.
except of course when it
is for a product you like.
Was Johnathan Wayne advertising
a "product"?
I thought he was selling off some of his private collection.
A different thing.
Yes, I see a difference
between a garage sale
and
General Electric.
It's
the equivalent of stapling a
"yard sale" sign to a telephone pole.
no, it is the equivalent of a
telephone solicitor interrupting your dinner. do you enjoy that? or is that
too a dehumanization.
How is
Johnathan Wayne's "spam"
A telephone solicitor doesn't tell you
as the
phone rings
that you're in for a sales pitch.
Johnathan Wayne did.
Johnathan Wayne announced
right in his header
that he had something he
wanted to sell.
You chose to "interrupt your dinner"
you chose to get
up and answer the phone
you chose to open the post
download the file
whatever
knowing it was "spam"
knowing it was exactly what sets you off
because you get a thrill out of denouncing "spam."
That is your right.
We all have our hobbies.
But your analogy
is your wrong.
Not like
a phone call at all,
not if Johnathan announces clearly
in his header
what it is.
I hope you have some energy left
for the
real problems of day-to-day living.
eating, shitting, smoking
fatties, reading comics, teaching comics, fucking, oh yeah, got plenty of
time for that. or would
the real problems be the incessant
accumulation of capitalist ideology into every facet of discourse, the
naturalization of
commodification as "inevitable" and all the
attendant problems it brings?
Who is Mike Sitz?
humorous.
You make me giggle.
Thank you for making me giggle.
The twisted doppelganger of the Leon Briggs of the world. ask over in
alt.fan.karl.malden.nose
Does this group exist?
I read this group because it interests
me.
I am against
advertising in this group.
I don't consider Johnathan
Wayne's post to really be advertising.
well then you have proved
that old maxim true: "better to shut your mouth and be thought an idiot than
to open it and
remove all doubt."
Is it possible?
A
question arises.
Is there no difference
between a billboard advertising
Kamels
and a photocopied sign on a laundry bulletin board
saying someone
has a yard sale on Saturday?
Each is advertising?
Each is spam?
Each is equally evil?
Each must be removed,
obliterated,
fought
against forever?
more rules?
FAQ's, look into it.
I shall admit to my own style of rudeness.
I don't read FAQs,
until I have
a question.
Maybe that's just me.
I should read every FAQ in every
group I read?
I hope I do not object
not as loudly
and not as rudely
as the man who has objected.
you want
rude, try this. Leon, you are a fucking idiot. get your punk ass bitch
poetry out of here. Buying your logical
assertions and poesia out of a
Toys R Us catalogue is just not the way to get ahead in this world. smoke a
joint and try
to get this simple tautology into your tiny little
cranium: advertising is advertising.
And
you're against all advertising in any form?
Or only against USENET
advertising, e-mail advertising, etc.?
Dialogue,
man.
Inquiring minds
want to know.
Does Toys R Us really have a catalogue?
I didn't know
that.
They've never mailed it to me.
I haven't received any junk mail
in years.
I get lots of spam, though.
Very annoying.
I like you
do you like me?
funny if you don't why don't ya?
honey if you won't why
won't ya?
Am I gonna have
trouble with you?
When all I really want
is more cybersmoochin'!
more smooches to the bad poet,
ronan
-**** Posted from Supernews, Discussions Start Here(tm) ****-
Leon Briggs
from Ronan!
For some reason
Ronan did not see fit
to
post this for the group
but I shall.
I know it's okay,
because it
doesn't contain any advertising:
Ronan says:
your poetry is pretty
weak. as is your logic. so be it, as there are no tests
for intelligence.
btw, it may have been a yard sign to you, but it was a
blaring full volume
advertisement to me. go figure. advertising everywhere? so
I guess that
justifies naturalizing it as a given, eh? too bad your sole
comments to
this group have been "I like reading spam" . good for you leon,
your mother
and I are so proud of you, especially your interpellation skills.
congratulations, you should be proud of your hard won acceptance of the
dominant ideology.
ronan
Actually,
I have said more than once,
words to the effect
that
I
do
not
like
reading
spam.
Announcing a garage sale
however
doesn't seem like spam to me.
Therein lies our
gentle disagreement.
A garage sale.
The
acceptance of
an announcement thereof
is the acceptance
the dominant
ideology?
Ah,
I must get back to today's
Wall Street Journal.
My mother is proud of me,
thanks for caring.
And I am proud of my
mother.
She loves me.
I love her.
And of course,
as stated
earlier,
I shall happily offer my comments
on other topics
for the
group
when the spirit moves me.
I know
we shall both
be looking
forward
to that day.
Until then,
I bid you a fond adieu.
p._bronson
haven't changed. Free speech includes the right to say things that
might bore me, offend me, anger me, and things that might bore,
offend, or anger you.
MTriggs886
>NO ADS! PERIOD. you wanna read ads, go to rec.arts.comics.marketplace. you
>got it in your headers, so you know what it is. see you got
>rec.arts.books.marketplace in your headers as well, so you must know what
RACM is good for when you're trying to sell stuff. But what about for an
independent publisher who just wants to let people know
they have an independent title coming out?
I don't know - that seems to fall more under this category. It seems silly to
allow discussion of independent comics, yet not allow the creators of
independent comics to mention they have independent comics that will be out
soon.
That's my take on it. I'm open to alternating viewpoints on this one. (Just
don't flame too harshly. I am a timid creature. Really, I am.)
-*-
Mike Triggs
Arch-Type Studios
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/4407/
Periphery #1 --> This December
48 pages of illustrated paranormality for under three bucks!
Bradly E. Peterson
>RACM is good for when you're trying to sell stuff. But what about for an
>independent publisher who just wants to let people know
>they have an independent title coming out?
Hype posts are entirely cool. Publishers don't get a lot of flak
for plugging a book they publish. That's entirely different from
someone who wants to sell something they didn't work to create.
Whole other animal entirely.
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove OMELETTEDUFROMAGE from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"Obscene" = 'It turns me on and I don't like it'.
(Samael)
Slink43809
entirely. If you think so you are deluded. Someone who purchased a comic and
wants to sell it is selling something that is theirs. Someone who creates
something and wants to sell it is selling something that is theirs. Just
because a person created something does not discount the fact that they are
SELLING something that they OWN. Saying a creator should be able to sell
something just because they created it is an opinion of yours that does not
help your argument. After all is said and done Bradley is just saying that he
doesn't mind creators selling and hyping (to sell) their wares, but DOES mind
people who purchased comics with their hard earned money to try to sell them
again.
mark_mannix
spammers more annoying than the spam.
Eli Bishop
I may be deluded, but you need to work on your logic (not to mention
your grammar).
Someone who creates something and announces it here is selling
something that didn't exist before -- something that I probably don't
know about -- and therefore they are telling me about it. And if it's
something that fits the general area of interest that we call
"alternative" comics, this is a good place to do that.
Someone who purchased a comic and wants to sell it is doing just that,
selling comics -- comics that I already know about, or at least
they're assuming I do, otherwise I wouldn't be very interested in
buying them. I fail to see how this is the same thing as promoting
new work. The only similarity is that money is involved.
Bradley doesn't mind "people who purchased comics with their hard
earned money to try [sic] to sell them again" -- I presume -- at least
he didn't say any such thing. The point is that THIS NEWSGROUP is not
the place to do that.
--
Eli Bishop / www.concentric.net/~Elib
"He was a near-genius in the usual sense of near-beer" - Van Veen
Doktor Pete
>No. I'm afraid plugging books that you want to SELL is NOT a whole 'nother idea
>entirely. If you think so you are deluded. Someone who purchased a comic and
>wants to sell it is selling something that is theirs. Someone who creates
>something and wants to sell it is selling something that is theirs. Just
>because a person created something does not discount the fact that they are
>SELLING something that they OWN. Saying a creator should be able to sell
>something just because they created it is an opinion of yours that does not
>help your argument. After all is said and done Bradley is just saying that he
>doesn't mind creators selling and hyping (to sell) their wares, but DOES mind
>people who purchased comics with their hard earned money to try to sell them
>again.
Well, I can see a clear distinction between the two. A publisher
making an announcement about a new comic is news, and can be
considered of general interest to everyone interested in comics.
The comic will be something no-one has ever seen before, and many
people will have never heard of. There will be several thousand
copies on sale, and anyone reading rac.misc will have a good chance of
being able to buy one. One trader saying that they have a few comics
for sale is not news and it is not of general interest.
-
"My character is still unformed, thank goodness." - Ivor Cutler
Doklands Mafia http://www.dok.clara.net/ Read the Complete Clovis
Leon Briggs
one of the key conundrums
one of the major mistakes
in Ronan's world view
and perhaps
if his interpretation is correct
in the group's FAQ.
I read rec.arts.comics.alternative
because I care passionately
about comics so alternative
they have to be self-published
perhaps due to subject matter
perhaps because the artist isn't yet "a name"
whatever
Ronan believes
and believes the FAQ backs him up
that someone who's just created 50 photocopies of a comic
that he drew himself, scripted himself, laid out himself,
paid for the copying, and will gladly send to anyone who sends a stamp
is
if he announces his comic in this group
a spammer
on the same level of evil
as someone who posts
HOT TEEN COCKSUCKERS ads
To me,
this is ludicrous.
Let's draw the line somewhere,
but let's draw the line somewhere sensible.
Article: 14 of 17
From: MTriggs886 <mtrig...@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Undergrounds, 60s books, etc for sale
Date: 15 Nov 1998 21:34:07 GMT
NO ADS! PERIOD. you wanna read ads, go to
rec.arts.comics.marketplace. you got it in your headers, so you
know what it is. see you got rec.arts.books.marketplace in your
headers as well, so you must know what
an independent publisher who just wants to let
people know they have an independent title coming out?
silly to allow discussion of independent comics,
yet not allow the creators of independent comics to mention they have
independent comics that will be out soon.
That's my take on it. I'm open to alternating viewpoints on this one.
(Just don't flame too harshly. I am a timid creature.
Really, I am.)
-*-
Mike Triggs Arch-Type Studios
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/4407/ Periphery #1 --> This
December
48 pages of illustrated paranormality for under three bucks!
-**** Posted from Supernews, Discussions Start Here(tm) ****-
Todd VerBeek
>>got it in your headers, so you know what it is. see you got
>>rec.arts.books.marketplace in your headers as well, so you must know what
My pal MTriggs886 said:
>RACM is good for when you're trying to sell stuff.
^^^^
(It's good idea to abbreviate "marketplace" as "RACMP" instead of "RACM",
lest it be confused with r.a.c.misc... which is =not= a good place to sell
stuff. {smile})
>But what about for an
>independent publisher who just wants to let people know
>they have an independent title coming out?
The rule of thumb in the r.a.c.* hierarchy has been that publishers
(particularly self-publishers) wishing to hype their upcoming releases can
do so as part of the signatures on their regular articles and/or post
brief, mostly-factual messages with "HYPE:" as a keyword on the subject
line. That way folks who don't want to read articles that are really just
adverts can easily skip/killfile them, while still allowing creators to
notify newsgroup readers of what they have coming out.
I'm not sure what the moderator's policy is for r.a.c.info, so don't quote
me on this, but I =think= that strictly factual notices of upcoming
releases that are not specifically offering to =sell= the books are
acceptable in that newsgroup.
Cheers, Todd
Duncan
>
> On 16 Nov 1998 17:21:41 GMT, slink...@aol.com (Slink43809) wrote:
> >No. I'm afraid plugging books that you want to SELL is NOT a whole 'nother idea
> >entirely. If you think so you are deluded. Someone who purchased a comic and
> >wants to sell it is selling something that is theirs. Someone who creates
> >something and wants to sell it is selling something that is theirs. Just
> >because a person created something does not discount the fact that they are
> >SELLING something that they OWN. Saying a creator should be able to sell
> >something just because they created it is an opinion of yours that does not
> >help your argument. After all is said and done Bradley is just saying that he
> >doesn't mind creators selling and hyping (to sell) their wares, but DOES mind
> >people who purchased comics with their hard earned money to try to sell them
> >again.
>
> your grammar).
>
> Someone who creates something and announces it here is selling
> something that didn't exist before -- something that I probably don't
> know about -- and therefore they are telling me about it. And if it's
> something that fits the general area of interest that we call
> "alternative" comics, this is a good place to do that.
>
> Someone who purchased a comic and wants to sell it is doing just that,
> selling comics -- comics that I already know about, or at least
> they're assuming I do, otherwise I wouldn't be very interested in
> buying them. I fail to see how this is the same thing as promoting
> new work. The only similarity is that money is involved.
>
> Bradley doesn't mind "people who purchased comics with their hard
> earned money to try [sic] to sell them again" -- I presume -- at least
> he didn't say any such thing. The point is that THIS NEWSGROUP is not
> the place to do that.
>
Stan Matters
For myself, I draw the distinction at private party ads (i.e., *I*
have created a comic doesn't bother me; *WE* have lots of comics for
sale does) that are group-specific (i.e., about comics, not about
astrology).
>This is to me
>
>and perhaps
>
>I read rec.arts.comics.alternative
>because I care passionately
>about comics so alternative
>
>
>whatever
>
>Ronan believes
>is
>a spammer
>as someone who posts
>HOT TEEN COCKSUCKERS ads
>
>To me,
>this is ludicrous.
>
>
>Article: 14 of 17
>From: MTriggs886 <mtrig...@aol.com>
>
> NO ADS! PERIOD. you wanna read ads, go to
>rec.arts.comics.marketplace. you got it in your headers, so you
> know what it is. see you got rec.arts.books.marketplace in your
>headers as well, so you must know what
>
> RACM is good for when you're trying to sell stuff. But what about for
>an independent publisher who just wants to let
> people know they have an independent title coming out?
>
> I don't know - that seems to fall more under this category. It seems
Bradly E. Peterson
>No. I'm afraid plugging books that you want to SELL is NOT a whole 'nother
>idea entirely. If you think so you are deluded.
How so? uh... Slink?
>Someone who purchased a comic and wants to sell it is selling something
>that is theirs. Someone who creates something and wants to sell it is
>selling something that is theirs.
I think you may be uh... Deluded. See, the RAC.marketplace
group is where you go to RE-SELL things. If you are a creator,
and you want to encourage people to purchase your book, whether
at your local comic shop, via online purchase, or through mail
order, then it's perfectly alright to HYPE that book here. There
IS a big difference between a HYPE post and some jerk who
bombards all the groups with spam to sell an overpriced
"collectible". Big BIG difference.
>Just because a person created something does not discount the
>fact that they are SELLING something that they OWN.
As I stated above, they might not actually OWN it. Some creators
work through publishers, rather than publishing it themselves.
>Saying a creator should be able to sell something just because they
>created it is an opinion of yours that does not help your argument.
Huh?
>After all is said and done Bradley
Bradly... No "E" in there. "E" is my middle initial.
>is just saying that he doesn't mind creators selling
>and hyping (to sell) their wares, but DOES mind people who purchased
>comics with their hard earned money to try to sell them again.
Duh. That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. I'm not the only one who
thinks so. See, it's very very ROUGH out there right now. It's
damned hard to make a LIVING in this business. And the
"collector" mentality has contributed much more harm than good to
this industry. Comics are not "collectibles", and anyone who
thinks so is not only lying to themselves, but to the general
public as well. Those who promote comics as "collectibles" are
missing the point entirely. Comics are a medium of expression,
an artform, a very unique form of entertainment, and might I add
one of the only TRUE American artforms.
In closing, I want to encourage the creators who are toiling over
the art tables to bring us the books we love to feel free to let
us, the readers know when your next stuff will be available, and
don't mind the trolls. They don't bite... Much.
PS: Slink? Yer mama named you Slink?
ronan
Arthur van Kruining
> Comics are a medium of expression,
> an artform, a very unique form of entertainment, and might I add
> one of the only TRUE American artforms.
Um... not really. Until the American comics explosion of the late
1890's, the art form was considered to be truly European. Some
old-fashioned American comics scholars may still argue that the
pre-Yellow Kid comics aren't really comics, but their arguments can
easily be brushed aside, and most historians see Swiss artist and
educator Rodolphe Töpffer (1799-1845) as the inventor of the 9th art.
Proost,
Arthur.
Justin Savage
(Arthur van Kruining) wrote:
err...using sequential images to tell a story goes back to cave paintings.
What eight art forms preceeded it?
--
Justin Savage
savages...@sabresedge.com
Sabre's Edge
http://www.sabresedge.com
Arthur van Kruining
> err...using sequential images to tell a story goes back to cave paintings.
Yes, and there's the Bayeux Tapestry and there are many broadsheets and
picture books &c. &c., all older than Töpffer's work. But his books were
the first that could be called comics in a modern sense.
> What eight art forms preceeded it?
In 1920 a movie fan called Ricciotto Canudo founded the "Club des amis
du 7e Art". This club published a 'fanzine' called _Gazette des sept
arts_, in the second issue of which was placed Canudo's _Manifeste des
Sept Arts_. Here he explains how he came to call the movies the 7th Art:
The two basic arts are Architecture and Music, discovered by primitive
man when he built himself a hut and accompanying his work rhythm with
his voice or other sounds.
Painting and Sculpture derive from Architecture. Less-primitive man
discovered that his fore-fathers' huts were kind of empty and plain.
Poetry and Dance appear as extensions of Music.
And then, Canudo concludes, "Aujourd'hui, le 'cercle en movement' de
l'esthétique se clôt enfin triomphalement sur cette fusion totale des
arts dite: Cinématographie".
He wrote this in 1923, a year before Gilbert Seldes wrote about _Krazy
Kat_ as a work of art in _The Seven Lively Arts_. Apparently Monsieur
Canudo didn't read _Krazy Kat_. Which is understandable, since AFAIK
that strip wasn't published in France at the time, and come to that,
neither were many other comics that could be called art.
However, Canudo's oversight was corrected in 1964 by one Claude Beylie.
He coined the term '9th Art' in the second of a series of articles he
wrote for a medical magazine. He called Radio & Television the 8th Art,
placed Comics 9th, and the rest is history.
Proost,
Arthur.
Justin Savage
(Arthur van Kruining) wrote:
> Justin Savage <savages...@sabresedge.com> wrote:
>
> > err...using sequential images to tell a story goes back to cave paintings.
>
> Yes, and there's the Bayeux Tapestry and there are many broadsheets and
> picture books &c. &c., all older than Töpffer's work. But his books were
> the first that could be called comics in a modern sense.
And what sense is that?
>
> > What eight art forms preceeded it?
>
> In 1920 a movie fan called Ricciotto Canudo founded the "Club des amis
> du 7e Art". This club published a 'fanzine' called _Gazette des sept
> arts_, in the second issue of which was placed Canudo's _Manifeste des
> Sept Arts_. Here he explains how he came to call the movies the 7th Art:
>
> The two basic arts are Architecture and Music, discovered by primitive
> man when he built himself a hut and accompanying his work rhythm with
> his voice or other sounds.
As noted before... caves don't require architecture.
>
> Painting and Sculpture derive from Architecture. Less-primitive man
> discovered that his fore-fathers' huts were kind of empty and plain.
Boy was this guy misinformed. Painting and drawing are non-verbal
communication, telling a story in pictures was a necessity long before
they decided to decorate with them. Sculpture could be an extension of
tool making. You've got me on that one.
>
> Poetry and Dance appear as extensions of Music.
Dance is another one that stems from non-verbal communication. Poetry is
post verbal. Originally it was the meter and rhyme that the elders of the
village used to help them memorize their myths, read about Homer and the
like.
> However, Canudo's oversight was corrected in 1964 by one Claude Beylie.
> He coined the term '9th Art' in the second of a series of articles he
> wrote for a medical magazine. He called Radio & Television the 8th Art,
> placed Comics 9th, and the rest is history.
The fact that he places radio and television in the same category is if
nothing else fairly humorous. Placing comics numerically after two
products which post date it (The technology wasn't even around) doesn't
lend credence to his argument either.
I spent eight years in college studying this stuff, and I find very few
arguments, that state definitively who made what art form and when, stand
up very well under scrutiny.
If you are arguing about the creation of the comic art form...its really
old. If you want to argue about what has had the most influence on the
publishing practices, format, and content of comics as they are
today....look at the american pulps. The rest of it is just creative
in-breeding.
Macfan
savages...@sabresedge.com (Justin Savage) wrote:
Arthur said:
> > However, Canudo's oversight was corrected in 1964 by one Claude Beylie.
> > He coined the term '9th Art' in the second of a series of articles he
> > wrote for a medical magazine. He called Radio & Television the 8th Art,
> > placed Comics 9th, and the rest is history.
Justin replied:
> The fact that he places radio and television in the same category is if
> nothing else fairly humorous. Placing comics numerically after two
> products which post date it (The technology wasn't even around) doesn't
> lend credence to his argument either.
> I spent eight years in college studying this stuff, and I find very few
> arguments, that state definitively who made what art form and when, stand
> up very well under scrutiny.
Boy, for someone who has supposedly studied this stuff, you don't read and
understand too well, do you?
Radio and TV are placed in the same catagory because they are both media of
the Broadcast variety. And comics weren't named the ninth art because they
did or didn't predate Radio and TV. They were named so because they weren't
perceived *as an artform* until after Radio and TV. Even in France, comics
weren't taken too seriously until the late sixties.
> If you are arguing about the creation of the comic art form...its really
> old. If you want to argue about what has had the most influence on the
> publishing practices, format, and content of comics as they are
> today....look at the american pulps. The rest of it is just creative
> in-breeding.
Oh, pull your head out of your arse. Not all comics are from the US. And
did comics in France, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Italy et al.
take their lead from the US pulps? I think not. The trouble with you
'Merkins is you think that you are the be-all and end-all of everything. It
just ain't so, I'm afraid.
Brad!
Mark Rosenfelder
Arthur van Kruining <arth...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Justin Savage <savages...@sabresedge.com> wrote:
>> err...using sequential images to tell a story goes back to cave paintings.
>
>Yes, and there's the Bayeux Tapestry and there are many broadsheets and
>picture books &c. &c., all older than Töpffer's work. But his books were
>the first that could be called comics in a modern sense.
What is that supposed to mean? What are "comics in a modern sense", and
how do they differ from all the other ways words and pictures had been
combined up to Topffer?
>> What eight art forms preceeded it?
>
>In 1920 a movie fan called Ricciotto Canudo founded the "Club des amis
>du 7e Art". This club published a 'fanzine' called _Gazette des sept
>arts_, in the second issue of which was placed Canudo's _Manifeste des
>Sept Arts_. Here he explains how he came to call the movies the 7th Art:
>
>The two basic arts are Architecture and Music, discovered by primitive
>man when he built himself a hut and accompanying his work rhythm with
>his voice or other sounds.
>
>Painting and Sculpture derive from Architecture. Less-primitive man
>discovered that his fore-fathers' huts were kind of empty and plain.
>
>Poetry and Dance appear as extensions of Music.
You do realize that Canudo is pulling this presumed order out of his hat,
don't you?
>And then, Canudo concludes, "Aujourd'hui, le 'cercle en movement' de
>l'esthétique se clôt enfin triomphalement sur cette fusion totale des
>arts dite: Cinématographie".
Si nous disions plutot "confusion totale des arts" ?
Rik Imundo
?
a list would be
thanx
Arthur van Kruining
> Arthur van Kruining <arth...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> >Yes, and there's the Bayeux Tapestry and there are many broadsheets and
> >picture books &c. &c., all older than Töpffer's work. But his books were
> >the first that could be called comics in a modern sense.
>
> What is that supposed to mean? What are "comics in a modern sense", and
> how do they differ from all the other ways words and pictures had been
> combined up to Topffer?
He was the first to combine the existing elements of graphic, literary
and theatrical story-telling into a comics grammar, one which to some
extent is still used today. He was the first to explore movie-like
montage and pacing. He drastically reduced the time gap between panels,
which implied another first: a marriage of text and image in which the
one meant nothing without the other. All his innovations together
spelled R-E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N (not 'evolution'); with _Les Amours de M.
Vieux Bois_ a new medium was born. This year it celebrated its 171th
birthday (it took me quite some time to blow out the candles (all were
made of alternative comics dipped in wax)).
> You do realize that Canudo is pulling this presumed order out of his hat,
> don't you?
Sure, ordering the arts like that is not an exact science. That's
probably why Canudo expressed his idea in a *manifesto*, eh? What I
don't understand, however, is why my extensive answer to Justin's
question is rewarded with such snide responses. Did I kill anyone? Is it
a breach of netiquette to share information here? It's certainly
discouraged well enough. Maybe I should start spamming; I'm sure *that*
effort will be judged correctly--won't it, ronan? Anyone wants to buy my
NM copy of _La Gazette des sept arts #2_?
> >And then, Canudo concludes, "Aujourd'hui, le 'cercle en movement' de
> >l'esthétique se clôt enfin triomphalement sur cette fusion totale des
> >arts dite: Cinématographie".
>
> Si nous disions plutot "confusion totale des arts" ?
Again, Canudo was only expressing his enthousiasm for his art of choice:
the movies. I suppose that as a good catholic he delighted in assigning
it the holy number seven; after which he proceeded to match the other
arts and numbers. No harm done, is there?
Proost,
Arthur.
Arthur van Kruining
> I spent eight years in college studying this stuff, and I find very few
> arguments, that state definitively who made what art form and when, stand
> up very well under scrutiny.
Scrutinize the case of M. Töpffer if you will. You'll see that his
combination of graphical, literary and theatrical elements meant such a
significant departure from the traditional picture stories that it's
safe to say that he forged an entire new art form.
> If you are arguing about the creation of the comic art form...its really
> old.
That's what you've learned in those eight years?
> If you want to argue about what has had the most influence on the
> publishing practices, format, and content of comics as they are
> today....look at the american pulps. The rest of it is just creative
> in-breeding.
I guess you mean "content of *American* comics". If not, you're talking
US-centric nonsense.
Proost,
Arthur.
Mark Rosenfelder
>> You do realize that Canudo is pulling this presumed order out of his hat,
>> don't you?
>
>Sure, ordering the arts like that is not an exact science. That's
>probably why Canudo expressed his idea in a *manifesto*, eh? What I
>don't understand, however, is why my extensive answer to Justin's
>question is rewarded with such snide responses. Did I kill anyone? Is it
>a breach of netiquette to share information here? It's certainly
>discouraged well enough. Maybe I should start spamming; I'm sure *that*
>effort will be judged correctly--won't it, ronan? Anyone wants to buy my
>NM copy of _La Gazette des sept arts #2_?
If I had known you were such a sensitive snot, I wouldn't have written so
"snidely"-- that is, asking questions, as if a dialog with you might
be a positive experience. Be assured that this misconception has been
corrected.
About Topffer you made a strong but completely unsupported claim. It's no
"breach of netiquette" to do so, but it's certainly arrogant to take
offense when you are asked to back up the claim. At least you did provide
a good answer this time. I'm very sorry that I couldn't think of any way
to get an answer except by asking a question.
As for Canudo, no, it's not "exact science", it's complete piffle. Yes,
you answered Justin's question-- thank you, O son of wisdom. However,
Canudo's myth is pseudoserious babble and attracted some amused comment.
Why you consider an attack on Canudo is an attack on you, however, would
be better discussed with your therapist.
>> >And then, Canudo concludes, "Aujourd'hui, le 'cercle en movement' de
>> >l'esthétique se clôt enfin triomphalement sur cette fusion totale des
>> >arts dite: Cinématographie".
>>
>> Si nous disions plutot "confusion totale des arts" ?
>
>Again, Canudo was only expressing his enthousiasm for his art of choice:
>the movies. I suppose that as a good catholic he delighted in assigning
>it the holy number seven; after which he proceeded to match the other
>arts and numbers. No harm done, is there?
No harm done? What is the relevance of that; can we only make fun of
people if they've maimed someone? Anybody's enthusiasms for new things
can look a bit silly seventy years later; I'm sure mine will. That
doesn't bother me and if it bothers Canudo, let him get out of the
manifesto business.
Justin Savage
(Arthur van Kruining) wrote:
> Justin Savage <savages...@sabresedge.com> wrote:
>
> > I spent eight years in college studying this stuff, and I find very few
> > arguments, that state definitively who made what art form and when, stand
> > up very well under scrutiny.
>
> Scrutinize the case of M. Töpffer if you will. You'll see that his
> combination of graphical, literary and theatrical elements meant such a
> significant departure from the traditional picture stories that it's
> safe to say that he forged an entire new art form.
You still haven't defined what makes these so much more authentic then
cave paintings.
>
> > If you are arguing about the creation of the comic art form...its really
> > old.
>
> That's what you've learned in those eight years?
Do you want copies of eight years worth of notes?
Some people just can't deal with a summary...
>
> > If you want to argue about what has had the most influence on the
> > publishing practices, format, and content of comics as they are
> > today....look at the american pulps. The rest of it is just creative
> > in-breeding.
>
> I guess you mean "content of *American* comics". If not, you're talking
> US-centric nonsense.
Not really. People love to throw out "US centric" as a defense for
everything. Look at the popularity of US comics during world war two. (OK
they were free to the soldiers...so that helps.) These books are probably
still littered all over Europe. Do you think that the world wars had no
cultural cross polination? Those comics were direct decendents of the
pulps.
We got cappucino and you got Captain America. Now as far as content of
European comics go, Metal Hurlant was Science fiction and fantasy. Where
were those genres featured in the thirty's? How about crime and detective
stories? Romance? Horror? Pulps. All of these genres were considered
low-fiction. In a lot of circles today they still are. Axia, Judge Dredd,
anything by Milo Manara. This stuff is all riding in the same boat. Genre
fiction that all owes alot to the pulps. The English had their own name
for them, Penny Dreadfulls. Sex, blood, and fantasy were their primary
draws. Now whether you think that your culture was more influenced by the
likes of Varney the Vampire or The Shadow is really up to you. (How about
Charles Dickens or Ray Bradbury? How about Issac Asimov or Micki
Spillaine...ooops both Americans. Bill or Ted? Heh..heh...sorry)
In discussions of format the European market has always been less tied to
US publishing practices, Thankfully.
Now here's an off topic question. On this US centric point. I'm sure there
are a variety of differences between cultures in America and Europe. But
do you go to American movies? Ever eaten fast food? (McDonalds, Burger
King, etc.) Drank a Coke? Read a Marvel or DC comic? Used software by
Microsoft or Apple? Look around you and tell me just how much the US has
had an effect on your country. (The most extreme example of which is
whether or not the Nazi party is running your government.)
Justin Savage
mac...@noaddress.com (Macfan) wrote:
> In article <savagespamblock-...@usr-401-1-168.isd.net>,
> savages...@sabresedge.com (Justin Savage) wrote:
>
> Arthur said:
> > > However, Canudo's oversight was corrected in 1964 by one Claude Beylie.
> > > He coined the term '9th Art' in the second of a series of articles he
> > > wrote for a medical magazine. He called Radio & Television the 8th Art,
> > > placed Comics 9th, and the rest is history.
>
> Justin replied:
> > The fact that he places radio and television in the same category is if
> > nothing else fairly humorous. Placing comics numerically after two
> > products which post date it (The technology wasn't even around) doesn't
> > lend credence to his argument either.
>
> > I spent eight years in college studying this stuff, and I find very few
> > arguments, that state definitively who made what art form and when, stand
> > up very well under scrutiny.
>
> Boy, for someone who has supposedly studied this stuff, you don't read and
> understand too well, do you?
Which part didn't you understand?
>
> Radio and TV are placed in the same catagory because they are both media of
> the Broadcast variety. And comics weren't named the ninth art because they
> did or didn't predate Radio and TV. They were named so because they weren't
> perceived *as an artform* until after Radio and TV. Even in France, comics
> weren't taken too seriously until the late sixties.
I'll have to tell the TV and radio people I know they all do the same job.
I'm going to keep this a secret from the animators though. They would just
be too confused. (Looking at the microphone...wondering how to keyframe
with the bugger.)
Look the point is the argument doesn't hold water. I'm not
misunderstanding what he said, I'm disagreeing with it.
>
> > If you are arguing about the creation of the comic art form...its really
> > old. If you want to argue about what has had the most influence on the
> > publishing practices, format, and content of comics as they are
> > today....look at the american pulps. The rest of it is just creative
> > in-breeding.
>
> Oh, pull your head out of your arse. Not all comics are from the US.
Did I say they were? Somebody needs to pull "your head out of your arse"
so you can hear me. (Or at least to be able to read the screen, and
concentrate well enough to understand it.)
And
> did comics in France, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Italy et al.
> take their lead from the US pulps?
Actually, I was just talking to a German publisher in rec.arts.comics.misc
who was saying how much the American market influences the German market.
I think not. The trouble with you
> 'Merkins is you think that you are the be-all and end-all of everything. It
> just ain't so, I'm afraid.
The trouble with non-americans is they don't like to admit how much
america has had an effect on the rest of the world. I never said it all
starts here. I believe I said it starts with cave paintings. There are
some in America but they are much newer than the European variety.
Bradly E. Peterson
deal:
>Bradly E. Peterson <dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net> wrote:
>
>> Comics are a medium of expression,
>> an artform, a very unique form of entertainment, and might I add
>> one of the only TRUE American artforms.
>
>Um... not really. Until the American comics explosion of the late
>1890's, the art form was considered to be truly European. Some
>old-fashioned American comics scholars may still argue that the
>pre-Yellow Kid comics aren't really comics, but their arguments can
>easily be brushed aside, and most historians see Swiss artist and
>educator Rodolphe Töpffer (1799-1845) as the inventor of the 9th art.
Those "old-fashioned" folk were right. What came before "Yellow
Kid" were not comics.
Bradly E. Peterson
>Radio and TV are placed in the same catagory because they are both media of
>the Broadcast variety. And comics weren't named the ninth art because they
>did or didn't predate Radio and TV. They were named so because they weren't
>perceived *as an artform* until after Radio and TV. Even in France, comics
>weren't taken too seriously until the late sixties.
When the reprints of "Jerry Lewis" comics hit the stands there.
heh...
Mark Rosenfelder
Bradly E. Peterson <dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net> wrote:
>Those "old-fashioned" folk were right. What came before "Yellow
>Kid" were not comics.
Why not?
F Uy
> > an artform, a very unique form of entertainment, and might I add
> > one of the only TRUE American artforms.
> easily be brushed aside, and most historians see Swiss artist and
> educator Rodolphe Töpffer (1799-1845) as the inventor of the 9th art.
I side with Scott McCloud on this one -- the Incas, Egyptians, etc
invented comics 1000+ years before Topffer & others re-discovered it.
-F
.
Jeff Erickson
>
> Come over and take a look: you'll find that only a sad
> minority of acne-ridden youths read American mainstream comics.
...as opposed to here in the States, where only a sad minority of
acne-ridden youths read American mainstream comics?
-- Jeff
Arthur van Kruining
> You still haven't defined what makes these so much more authentic then
> cave paintings.
This has nothing to do with authenticity. Apparently your definition of
comics doesn't go any further than: "a bunch of pictures telling a
story, and, oh yeah, some have words added." In that case, sure, comics
began in the Stone Age. And so did the movies...
Most useful and refined definitions of comics, ones that describe the
medium as it is presented today, will ultimately lead you to Töpffer. He
invented the grammar of the medium. He was widely imitated by both
Europeans and Americans; he had a huge influence on Wilhelm Busch, who
in his turn influenced Dirks and the other German-American cartoonists
of the American comics revolution, which came when, writes Maurice Horn
in _The World Encyclopedia of Comics_, "nothing pointed to an American
breakthrough in a field that had been pioneered and explored almost
exclusively by Europeans. American artists were lagging far behind their
European counterparts in the art of pictorial storytelling."
> People love to throw out "US centric" as a defense for
> everything. Look at the popularity of US comics during world war two. (OK
> they were free to the soldiers...so that helps.) These books are probably
> still littered all over Europe.
What are you talking about? Those soldiers must have taken all these
books back home again, because I've never seen them, or even heard they
were around.
> Do you think that the world wars had no
> cultural cross polination? Those comics were direct decendents of the
> pulps.
You need to read a good comics history book. The Americans didn't bring
comics back to Europe. We came to fetch them, in the interbellum. Not
comic *books* but comic *strips*, to put in our newspapers and
magazines. Then there was an important fusion of the two existing
traditions, but the result was distinctly European. Hergé was very much
influenced by Geo. McManus, but you won't find any pulp ancestors in his
artistic family.
Comic books had very little, and certainly not a lasting, impact in
Europe. There were all sorts of pulpy comic-type booklets after the war,
but they were soon replaced by comics magazines. Many comics that were
serialized in these magazines were later collected in 'albums'. These
larger-than-comic books, which were and are often in hardcover, are
closer related to the old comic strip collections than comic books, let
alone pulp magazines.
> We got cappucino and you got Captain America.
We do? Do you honestly think we all read those thrashy pamphlets? Talk
about US-centric! Come over and take a look: you'll find that only a sad
minority of acne-ridden youths read American mainstream comics. Ask any
of them who Captain America is; they won't know. Ancient comic, no
collections.
Batman, yes. Superman, yes. Captain America, no. (Even I can hardly
place the character, and I *like* those silly old superhero comics!)
> Now as far as content of
> European comics go, Metal Hurlant was Science fiction and fantasy.
That book by Pierre Clement I reviewed here a few days ago was
serialized in _Metal Hurlant_. By no stretch of the imagination can it
be linked to your pulps. And neither can the work of Alexis, Lob,
F'Murr, Schuiten, Montellier, Clerc, Chaland, Benoit, Masse and many,
many other contributors to that magazine. Also, I don't think the work
of _MH_ contributors like Loustal, Tardi, Ferrandez, Margerin, Petillon,
Mandryka and many of the abovementioned cartoonists can be labelled SF
or fantasy.
Also, there is quite a bit more to European comics than _Metal Hurlant_.
Don't you read _European Comics for Beginners_?
> Where were those genres featured in the thirty's?
In European comics. Have a look at _Futuropolis_ by René Pellos.
> How about crime and detective
> stories? Romance? Horror? Pulps. All of these genres were considered
> low-fiction. In a lot of circles today they still are. Axia, Judge Dredd,
> anything by Milo Manara. This stuff is all riding in the same boat.
I'm afraid your view of European comics is very much skewed by what has
been made available in the US. You must realize that the European comics
that are available to you by no means reflect what's available to us. It
mainly reflects what Americans think will sell in the US. So you get the
pulps: the sex and the violence, because that will always sell. It's not
very wise to judge a whole comics tradition by a non-representative
sample.
> Genre fiction that all owes alot to the pulps.
I'm not denying that the pulps were a source of inspiration. But to call
it the main source of European comics is plain wrong. Children's books
played a much more important role in the development of Euro comics.
> Now here's an off topic question. On this US centric point. I'm sure there
> are a variety of differences between cultures in America and Europe. But
> do you go to American movies? Ever eaten fast food? (McDonalds, Burger
> King, etc.) Drank a Coke? Read a Marvel or DC comic? Used software by
> Microsoft or Apple? Look around you and tell me just how much the US has
> had an effect on your country.
Sure, sure, you're the greatest nation on earth. <yawn> Look, I'm not
interested in another useless Europe vs America discussion. All I wanted
was to dispel the myth that comics are a true American art form. I'm not
saying American comics suck or anything. By God, you have such an
immense comics heritage to be proud of! I just wish you'd take better
care of it. To me, the fact that it's nearly impossible for a comics
reader to read the complete works of Herriman, Sterrett, Segar, Crane,
King &c. &c., is as ridiculous as a library without the works of
Shakespeare. It's insane that a _Smokey Stover_ collection is only
available in French. AFAIK the complete edition of _Rip Kirby_ will only
be available in Dutch. And so on.
When will you all wake up?!
Proost,
Arthur.
Arthur van Kruining
> If I had known you were such a sensitive snot
I believe that's what you'd call adding insult to injury.
It's not about being sensitive, it's about being fair. I don't mind a
bit of bickering, as long as it's fair, give and take, and that sort of
thing. But to respond to a simple claim and a bit of info with such a
snide tone and to stoop to name-calling when asked for an explanation of
said tone, was quite uncalled for.
You're the one with a problem.
Proost,
Arthur.
Arthur van Kruining
> Those "old-fashioned" folk were right. What came before "Yellow
> Kid" were not comics.
Because...?
Proost,
Arthur.
Arthur van Kruining
> I side with Scott McCloud on this one -- the Incas, Egyptians, etc
> invented comics 1000+ years before Topffer & others re-discovered it.
McCloud says, like me, that Töpffer is the father of modern comics.
"[H]e who was neither artist nor writer--had created and mastered a form
which was at once both and neither. A language all its own." I don't
know how a form can be both and neither an artist or a writer, but
sloppy English aside, I'd say this means a little more than just a
're-discovery'. What do you mean by 're-discovered' anyway? Was there a
time when the 9th art was lost?
I prefer to call what McCloud calls 'modern comics' 'comics', and those
early diverse media 'comics' 'proto-comics'. Calling cave paintings,
tapestries etc. 'comics' is like calling hand-made shadow rabbits
'movies'.
BTW, McCloud sells Töpffer short: he was an both an artist *and* a
writer. His literary books could be found in all self-respecting
libraries of the 19th-century. I recently read a novel written in 1913
and set in a nursing home: one of the books in its small library was a
copy of Töpffer's _Nouvelles genevoises_. Now the guy is totally
forgotten as a writer, probably because his style doesn't conform to the
demands of serious modern literature. It's probably deemed too
comfortable and humorous. Which is exactly what I like about it.
Proost,
Arthur.
PS. Erratum: Töpffer died in 1846, not 1845.
Bradly E. Peterson
deal:
>Bradly E. Peterson <dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net> wrote:
Because I said so. heh... To be more precise, COMICBOOKS are an
american invention. I think I misspoke in that area. I've just
gotten back on the Ginko Biloba after two weeks off the stuff.
Mark Rosenfelder
>It's not about being sensitive, it's about being fair. I don't mind a
>bit of bickering, as long as it's fair, give and take, and that sort of
>thing. But to respond to a simple claim and a bit of info with such a
>snide tone and to stoop to name-calling when asked for an explanation of
>said tone, was quite uncalled for.
Make unsupported claims and you'll be challenged on it; quote someone's
fantasy archeology and that will be challenged as well. The reactions you
received were not personal attacks, but you reacted as if they were, and
with personal attacks of your own. You, sir, are the one whose behavior
is out of line.
Arthur van Kruining
> Arthur van Kruining wrote:
> >
> > Come over and take a look: you'll find that only a sad
> > minority of acne-ridden youths read American mainstream comics.
>
> ...as opposed to here in the States, where only a sad minority of
> acne-ridden youths read American mainstream comics?
Yes. Minority of European comics readers vs minority of American
population but majority of American comics readers.
Proost,
Arthur.
Arthur van Kruining
> To be more precise, COMICBOOKS are an american invention.
Weeeell, Töpffer comics were published as books, so these are also
considered the first comic books. But if you mean the pamphlet type of
comic books, then, yes, that is an American phenomenon.
> I've just
> gotten back on the Ginko Biloba after two weeks off the stuff.
Ginko Biloba rocks! I've got all their records.
Proost,
Arthur.
Arthur van Kruining
> Make unsupported claims and you'll be challenged on it; quote someone's
> fantasy archeology and that will be challenged as well.
I objected not to the challenge but to the way in which it was
conducted.
My 'claim' is unfolded in _Understanding Comics_, so I expected it to be
common knowledge rather than a challenge.
Also, I found it strange that Canudo + Beylie's 'archeology' was
challenged as if it was my own. Perhaps it's due to American
unfamiliarity with the term '9th Art'...
> The reactions you
> received were not personal attacks, but you reacted as if they were, and
> with personal attacks of your own.
Nonsense. I did not attack you personally.
However, I may be guilty of a little snideness myself. So, let's drop
this fruitless discussion and move on, alright?
Proost,
Arthur.
Arthur van Kruining
> Actually, I was just talking to a German publisher in rec.arts.comics.misc
> who was saying how much the American market influences the German market.
Indeed, judging from the German comics newsgroup they produce a whole
lot of crap there as well.
Proost,
Arthur.
ClckwrkO
>>>got it in your headers, so you know what it is.
Is there any way that a separate R.A.C. can be created for alternative comics
or, better yet, for underground comix?
I can't be bothered to wade through all the crap in rec.arts.comics.marketplace
to look for the few comix I'm actually interested in.
How 'bout it, folks?
ClckwrkO
Todd VerBeek
>Is there any way that a separate R.A.C. can be created for alternative comics
>or, better yet, for underground comix?
>I can't be bothered to wade through all the crap in rec.arts.comics.marketplace
>to look for the few comix I'm actually interested in.
There have been a number of proposal in the past few years to split
r.a.c.mp into various subgroups. The two biggest stumbling blocks so far
have been 1) deciding what the subgroups should be, and 2) figuring out
how to make sure those boundaries are followed. For example, the last
proposal was to separate books by time period (pre-1970, 1970-1989,
1990-present) and/or by wanted/for-sale, with the use of a robomoderator
to prevent crossposting. But no one was able and willing to run a modbot
for it, so it stalled.
Frankly, I don't think there'd be enough support for splitting r.a.c.mp
along alternative/mainstream lines. The boundaries are too fuzzy, and I
don't see how we'd keep folks from posting lots of "FS: DANGER GIRL #1"
and such to the alternative group. And you'd get opposition from folks
who want to see the group split differently.
The best solution I can suggest at this point is to go into r.a.c.mp with
a well-stocked killfile. Fill it with "super*" and "x-*" and "spawn" and
whatever other superhero titles you encounter. With enough of that, you
might find what's left useful. If you're using AOL... look into getting a
standard ISP that will allow you to use a competently-written newsreader
instead of the one AOL gives you.
Cheers, Todd
Brad! Brooks
savages...@sabresedge.com (Justin Savage) wrote:
> > Boy, for someone who has supposedly studied this stuff, you don't read and
> > understand too well, do you?
>
> Which part didn't you understand?
Touché. A witty and incredibly insightful reposté.
> >
> > Radio and TV are placed in the same catagory because they are both media of
> > the Broadcast variety. And comics weren't named the ninth art because they
> > did or didn't predate Radio and TV. They were named so because they weren't
> > perceived *as an artform* until after Radio and TV. Even in France, comics
> > weren't taken too seriously until the late sixties.
>
> I'll have to tell the TV and radio people I know they all do the same job.
> I'm going to keep this a secret from the animators though. They would just
> be too confused. (Looking at the microphone...wondering how to keyframe
> with the bugger.)
Ooh, won't they be miffed. I didn't say they did the same job, I just
pointed out they are both broadcast media.
> Look the point is the argument doesn't hold water. I'm not
> misunderstanding what he said, I'm disagreeing with it.
No, the point is that an American didn't come up with the theory, therefore
it's flawed -- typical reaction from an American.
> Did I say they were? Somebody needs to pull "your head out of your arse"
> so you can hear me. (Or at least to be able to read the screen, and
> concentrate well enough to understand it.)
Wow! I take it all back. You, sir, are the living reincarnation of Oscar
Wilde. As well as a theorectical thinker the likes of which hasn't been
seen since Umberto Eco. How clever of you to take what I said an twist it
around so it backfired on me. I stand in awe.
> And
> > did comics in France, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Italy et al.
> > take their lead from the US pulps?
>
> Actually, I was just talking to a German publisher in rec.arts.comics.misc
> who was saying how much the American market influences the German market.
Maybe now when the German comics industry is pretty dead in the water. The
real movers and shakers in the Germanic-speaking comics world,
creative-wise, are the Swiss (just like Töpffler). It may interest you to
learn that (1) the German comics market hasn't always been as reliant on US
crap as it has been lately, (2) the largest German comics publisher,
Carlsen, had their own night of the long knifes about six months ago and
fired anybody who was in the least bit creative from their editorial staff,
thus opening the door for people who would think that reprinting Spawn was
a valid publishing move, and, most importantly, (3) The German comics
market is just as reliant on the Franco-Belgian comics industry as it is
from the Americans. BTW, just *whom* was this German publisher you were
talking to. Name names.
> The trouble with non-americans is they don't like to admit how much
> america has had an effect on the rest of the world. I never said it all
> starts here. I believe I said it starts with cave paintings. There are
> some in America but they are much newer than the European variety.
No, you were specifically talking about comics and your assertation that
they are an American invention. As Arthur (a man BTW, who has forgotten
more about comics than you'll *ever* know) noted in this same thread, try
reading a decent comics history -- like Couperie & Horn's Bande Dessinée
et Figuration Narrative, or even Horn's World Encyclopaedia of Comics. And
as for the effect that US culture has had on the rest of the world -- well,
just because I use a Mac, watch the Simpsons, or read the Comics Journal
doesn't mean I should instantly fall at your feet in supplication. Or that
I should bow to your judgement.
--
Brad! Brooks (yes, I am that MacFan)
Les Cartoonistes Dangereux
lcdcomix@bt***NOSPAM***internet.com
Brad! Brooks
<4D8B22FD08777E49.3FFEBB07...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>, dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net (Bradly E. Peterson) wrote:
> mac...@noaddress.com (Macfan) done said this here deal:
>
> >Radio and TV are placed in the same catagory because they are both media of
> >the Broadcast variety. And comics weren't named the ninth art because they
> >did or didn't predate Radio and TV. They were named so because they weren't
> >perceived *as an artform* until after Radio and TV. Even in France, comics
> >weren't taken too seriously until the late sixties.
>
> When the reprints of "Jerry Lewis" comics hit the stands there.
> heh...
Ha Ha. Very witty. Maybe you and Justin should form a club.
--
Brad! Brooks
Les Cartoonistes Dangereux
lcdcomix@bt***NOSPAM***internet.com
Bradly E. Peterson
here deal:
>dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net (Bradly E. Peterson) wrote:
>> When the reprints of "Jerry Lewis" comics hit the stands there.
>> heh...
>
>Ha Ha. Very witty. Maybe you and Justin should form a club.
Well, we both hang out at COMICON.com, so we sort of are... I
guess. heh...
Mike Chary
>> > one of the only TRUE American artforms.
>
>> easily be brushed aside, and most historians see Swiss artist and
>> educator Rodolphe Töpffer (1799-1845) as the inventor of the 9th art.
>
> invented comics 1000+ years before Topffer & others re-discovered it.
McCloud has to say that for the same reason he has to dismiss Family
Circus: he came up with an inadequate definition, and so he then has to
account for the objections.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
GO JESSE "THE BODY" VENTURA!!!! YOUR NEXT GOVERNOR OF MINNESOTA!!!!!!!
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." - Roger Bacon
Martin Wisse
(Bradly E. Peterson) wrote:
>arth...@xs4all.nl (Arthur van Kruining) done said this here
>deal:
>
>>Bradly E. Peterson <dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Comics are a medium of expression,
>>> an artform, a very unique form of entertainment, and might I add
>>> one of the only TRUE American artforms.
>>
>>Um... not really. Until the American comics explosion of the late
>>1890's, the art form was considered to be truly European. Some
>>old-fashioned American comics scholars may still argue that the
>>pre-Yellow Kid comics aren't really comics, but their arguments can
>>easily be brushed aside, and most historians see Swiss artist and
>>educator Rodolphe Töpffer (1799-1845) as the inventor of the 9th art.
>
>Those "old-fashioned" folk were right. What came before "Yellow
>Kid" were not comics.
I have sitting on my desk here a book called _Mijnheer Prikkebeen_, a
Dutch translation of Rudolphe Topffer's _Monsieur Cryptogramme_, which
is much closer to the modern comic form then the Yellow Kid was when
it debuted. It was published some years before that YK. Try to find
the two comic history books written by David Kunzle, which will give
you a nice overview of comics created before the 20 th century.
Comics have around a lot longer then you might suspect...
Martin Wisse
--
<HTML><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type:text/html"> <SCRIPT>
function X() {var Text = "HTML is not acceptable for using in mail " +
"or usenet so your browser will stop."; alert(Text); parent.close();};
</SCRIPT> </HEAD><BODY onLoad="X();return true">Hi</HTML>
Martin Wisse
>arth...@xs4all.nl (Arthur van Kruining) wrote:
>> Bradly E. Peterson <dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net> wrote:
>
>> > an artform, a very unique form of entertainment, and might I add
>> > one of the only TRUE American artforms.
>
>> easily be brushed aside, and most historians see Swiss artist and
>> educator Rodolphe Töpffer (1799-1845) as the inventor of the 9th art.
>
>I side with Scott McCloud on this one -- the Incas, Egyptians, etc
> invented comics 1000+ years before Topffer & others re-discovered it.
I'm ambivalent about this. On the one hand i can see Mccloud's point
for at least some of those ancient "comics" being real comics.
OTOH, too many seem to be only marginally comics like for me to
really accept it.
Mark Rosenfelder
Robert Lee <v...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
>F Uy <yaho...@francis.uy> wrote:
>> I side with Scott McCloud on this one -- the Incas, Egyptians, etc
>> invented comics 1000+ years before Topffer & others re-discovered it.
>
>The similarities are superficial at best, and as another poster said, you
>may as well claim that cavemen invented movies.
Well, that would about wrap it up for McCloud, except that he said nothing
about cave paintings and said that hieroglyphics were *not* comics.
Robert Lee
> arth...@xs4all.nl (Arthur van Kruining) wrote:
> > Bradly E. Peterson <dramaOMELET...@fastlane.net> wrote:
> > > an artform, a very unique form of entertainment, and might I add
> > > one of the only TRUE American artforms.
> > easily be brushed aside, and most historians see Swiss artist and
> > educator Rodolphe Töpffer (1799-1845) as the inventor of the 9th art.
> I side with Scott McCloud on this one -- the Incas, Egyptians, etc
> invented comics 1000+ years before Topffer & others re-discovered it.
Oh, hooey. Cave paintings are not comics, and neither are hieroglyphics.
The similarities are superficial at best, and as another poster said, you
may as well claim that cavemen invented movies.
--Robert
--
"My God, we'd be going from McDonald's to McDonald's forever."
--my wife, in response to the line about "letting the children
lead the way" in that stupid "Greatest Love of All" song
ronan
>
> In article <ciH82.15088$Sz4.8...@news.teleport.com>,
> Robert Lee <v...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
> >F Uy <yaho...@francis.uy> wrote:
> >> invented comics 1000+ years before Topffer & others re-discovered it.
> >
> >Oh, hooey. Cave paintings are not comics, and neither are hieroglyphics.
> >The similarities are superficial at best, and as another poster said, you
> >may as well claim that cavemen invented movies.
>
> about cave paintings and said that hieroglyphics were *not* comics.
actually, that is not true. McCloud clearly claims that the hieroglyphs
painted on the Tomb of Menna *are* comics. On page 14 of UC he claims that "as
would be done 2,700 years later in Mexico, the Egyptians read their comics
zig-zag." Seems pretty clear to me that McCloud is claiming these as comics.
On the next page (15) he claims "I'll gladly admit I have no idea when or
where comics originated. Let others wrestle with that one." McCloud then
suggests "Trajan's Column, Greek Painting,Japanese Scrolls" as suggested
origins and avenues for exploration. With the invention of printing, he
claims, "the art-form which had been a diversion of the rich and powerful, now
could be enjoyed by everyone." So again, in a manner typical of UC, he is
suggesting an earlier origin based upon the notion of sequentiality.
McCloud hedges his bets (hogarth, copyright, etc.) by citing Toepfer as the
father of "Modern" comics. But it is pretty clear that for him, in UC, comics
predates Toepfer. By centuries. Of course the whole debate revolves around
what is a comic, what is sequential art, etcetera. An endless debate, but one
that surely puts to bed any claims that comics are an *American* art form.
ronan
Mark Rosenfelder
>Mark Rosenfelder wrote:
>> Robert Lee <v...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
>> >Oh, hooey. Cave paintings are not comics, and neither are hieroglyphics.
>> >The similarities are superficial at best, and as another poster said, you
>> >may as well claim that cavemen invented movies.
>>
>> Well, that would about wrap it up for McCloud, except that he said nothing
>> about cave paintings and said that hieroglyphics were *not* comics.
>
>actually, that is not true. McCloud clearly claims that the hieroglyphs
>painted on the Tomb of Menna *are* comics. On page 14 of UC he claims that "as
>would be done 2,700 years later in Mexico, the Egyptians read their comics
>zig-zag." Seems pretty clear to me that McCloud is claiming these as comics.
Start reading a page or two earlier; he says explicitly that hieroglyphics
are *not* comics. "Hieroglyphics" are Ancient Egyptian *writing*; they
are not comics any more than a page of Chinese text is comics. What
McCloud claims are comics are the *pictures with writing* on Menna's tomb.
As in the Mayan example, it may seem hard to divide the pictures from the
writing-- but not if you know the writing involved.
>On the next page (15) he claims "I'll gladly admit I have no idea when or
>where comics originated. Let others wrestle with that one." McCloud then
>suggests "Trajan's Column, Greek Painting,Japanese Scrolls" as suggested
>origins and avenues for exploration. With the invention of printing, he
>claims, "the art-form which had been a diversion of the rich and powerful, now
>could be enjoyed by everyone." So again, in a manner typical of UC, he is
>suggesting an earlier origin based upon the notion of sequentiality.
Sure. But as I said, he doesn't mention cave paintings, which is the idea
Mr. Lee was attacking him for.
>McCloud hedges his bets (hogarth, copyright, etc.) by citing Toepfer as the
>father of "Modern" comics. But it is pretty clear that for him, in UC, comics
>predates Toepfer. By centuries. Of course the whole debate revolves around
>what is a comic, what is sequential art, etcetera. An endless debate, but one
>that surely puts to bed any claims that comics are an *American* art form.
Unfortunately for the fun of the debate, the advocates of that position
all gave up. :)
We might want to distinguish the invention of the medium from the working
out of the genre(s) of comics. It's a bit like science fiction: you can
trace antecedents back thousands of years, but till this century it was
just the fantastical side of mainstream fiction, not a genre. The
newspaper strip was turning into a genre at the turn of the century.
I'm not sure what to call what preceded it-- the style exemplified by
Topfler, Max und Moritz, Becassine, etc. It certainly influenced the
newspaper strip, but it didn't do all the work in creating the genre.
You can see this in Herge's development: he was familiar with this sort of
bottom-captioned story, but he found American newspaper strips a
revelation. How could that be if Topfler had discovered everything
already?
Duncan
Todd VerBeek wrote [SNIPPED]:
> There have been a number of proposal in the past few years to split
> r.a.c.mp into various subgroups. The two biggest stumbling blocks so far
> have been 1) deciding what the subgroups should be, and 2) figuring out
> how to make sure those boundaries are followed.
> Frankly, I don't think there'd be enough support for splitting r.a.c.mp along
> alternative/mainstream lines. The boundaries are too fuzzy.
> The best solution I can suggest at this point is to go into r.a.c.mp with
> a well-stocked killfile. Fill it with "super*" and "x-*" and "spawn" and
> whatever other superhero titles you encounter. With enough of that, you
> might find what's left useful.
Not satisfactory, though. Cut out superhero comics and you lose parodies like Rick
Veitch's or Pat Mills' as well as quality homages like Astro City etc. etc. Even
killing, say, the "super-" or "bat-" prefixes means losing Alan Moore's Superman &
Batman stories, for example.(I guess you could argue that Superman & Batman at
least have now become icons, some way removed from the rest of the superhero pack
and so exceptional, but then by including them you'd obviously be letting in a
shitload of dross.)
And where would you put the Vertigo line, such as Animal Man, Doom Patrol? Or
Grendel? What about superhero manga or Euro comics like Propellor Man? Or
Rocketeer, for that matter...
In the end you're faced with making an aesthetic decision: you have to divide
comics into 'good' and 'bad' catagories within their own terms - something we all
do, after all, when we buy the damn things of a weekend.
So the first task is: define a 'Good Comic'...
F Uy
> > Well, that would about wrap it up for McCloud, except that he said nothing
> > about cave paintings and said that hieroglyphics were *not* comics.
> actually, that is not true. McCloud clearly claims that the hieroglyphs
> painted on the Tomb of Menna *are* comics. On page 14 of UC he claims that
No. The paintings on Menna's tomb are NOT hieroglyphs, they're a
graphic short story. Hieroglyphs are a specific set of symbols that
represent words. Not all Egyptian painting is hieroglyphic.
-F
.
Robert Lee
> Sure. But as I said, he doesn't mention cave paintings, which is the idea
> Mr. Lee was attacking him for.
I didn't attack Scott McCloud at all. Somebody stole my copy of UC three
years ago, and I make no claims as to what he did or did not say in it. If
I was attacking anything, it was claims made in this thread, which, it
sounds like, turn out not even to be substantiated by the text people keep
citing.
Arthur van Kruining
> We might want to distinguish the invention of the medium from the working
> out of the genre(s) of comics. It's a bit like science fiction: you can
> trace antecedents back thousands of years, but till this century it was
> just the fantastical side of mainstream fiction, not a genre. The
> newspaper strip was turning into a genre at the turn of the century.
I'd call it a form rather than a genre. Genres generally refer to
content.
> I'm not sure what to call what preceded it-- the style exemplified by
> Topfler, Max und Moritz, Becassine, etc.
They represent a single style about as much as _Palookaville_, _Asterix_
and _Spawn_ do. Busch was influenced by Töpffer, but formally _Max und
Moritz_ was much closer to the children's literature of the day, most
notably Hoffmann's _Der Struwwelpeter_. _Becassine_ idem dito, hardly a
trace of Töpffer's innovations, but steeped in the 19th century
tradition of 'Bilderbogen' and 'histoires illustrees'.
Töpffer's work may have been both a commercial and an artistic success,
the development of his new language was arrested for technical and
commercial reasons. It was OK for Doré to do a Töpffer-like comic when
he was still in high-school, but when he had to earn his keep it was
much more profitable for him to do illustrations. (Some things never
change.)
> It certainly influenced the
> newspaper strip, but it didn't do all the work in creating the genre.
> You can see this in Herge's development: he was familiar with this sort of
> bottom-captioned story, but he found American newspaper strips a
> revelation.
When and where did he say that? Sure, the stylistic influence is
obvious. But formally? Hergé would probably have drawn captioned stories
if his mentor Alain Saint-Ogan hadn't used word balloons in _Zig et
Puce_ (where you'll find many ideas later--and better--used in
_Tintin_). IMO the formal American influence on Hergé was not as direct
as you imply but was filtered through Saint-Ogan.
> How could that be if Topfler had discovered everything
> already?
Nobody claimed Töpffer discovered everything. He was aware of the
existence of speech balloons, though. His main graphic influence, Thomas
Rowlandson, and many of the English caricaturists whose works were
studied, copied and bought by his father, used speech balloons.
So not using speech balloons was a deliberate artistic choice; made
partly because Rowlandson didn't use them in his _Doctor Syntax_ (a
direct influence on T.'s _Dr. Festus_), and perhaps partly because of an
aversion to speech balloons, particularly when used in sequential
narratives. This feeling is hard to understand now, but it was genuine
in Töpffer's day and age. Remember, this was when narrative painting
ruled. Most artists, including Hogarth, thought that the picture should
tell the story. If additional narrative info is needed it should be
placed ex-pictura because it may not interfere with the image.
Here's a perfect illustration of the anti-balloon climate of the time.
When the great Grandville dared to use speech balloons he was scolded by
none other than Charles Baudelaire! In his article _Quelques
carcaturistes français_ (1857) he writes about an "esprit maladivement
littéraire, toujours en quête de moyens bâtards pour faire entrer sa
pensée dans le domaine des arts plastiques; aussi l'avons nous vu
souvent user du vieux procédé qui consiste à attacher aux bouches de ses
personnages des banderoles parlantes."
The Americans didn't care shit about this near-taboo on entering pensées
in plastic arts domains and went along combining the anglo-saxon speech
balloons with the continental comic tradition. Surely a major
innovation--but a great revelation?
Proost,
Arthur.
ronan
re-reading pages 1-20 of UC is always a lot of fun, if only to disagree with
the disagreeable uy.
Hieroglyphs are a specific set of symbols that represent words.
ok, I agree, but it sounds an awful lot like audience member Bob's objection
on page 8. Bob says to McCloud that "letters are static images, right? When
they are arranged in a deliberate sequence, placed next to each other, we call
them words!" McCloud agrees, and expands his definition of comics one more
time: "Juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended
to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer."
isn't that what hieroglyphs do, to convey information. The real crux of
McClouds idealist quest for an originary point for comics, however, comes over
the differentiation of egyptian hieroglyphs from egyptian painting (mark, you
were correct, UC does make that distinction, but it is a false one) and the
role of "pictorial." McCloud's def. of pictorial relies on the pictorial
element indicating "at least some resemblance to the subject. but these glyphs
represent oonly sounds, not unlike our alphabet."
slippage: resemble/represent. and why the need for "resemblance" for pictorial
eloements. what does an abstarct expressionist work from deKoonig "resemble"
or what does Jim WQoodring's "Pupshaw" resemble? why the need for a
resemblance, and of an absent subject? one more nitpick. why does the word
"interdependent" sneak into words and pictures when UC comes to Topffr on page
17? The "both and neither" of comics? one final point, McCloud does seperate
egyptian writing/painting, but he does claim Menna's tomb is a comic,
"egyptians read their comics zig-zag" just like the pre-Colombian picture
manuscript of 8-Deer Tiger's Claw. So I guess the "modern" of modern comics is
not an essential attribute, but a material one, their printing.
Mark, having spent way too many hours in literature classes, I am unclear
wha6t you mean by genre, and its difference from medium? Genre as in men in
tights versus romance, or tales of hippies, or anthropomorphic animals? Is
this what you mean by genre?
ronan
Slink43809
Does it really matter what "so-called" genre it is labeled in if it is done
exceptionally well? Scott
Arthur van Kruining
> just like the pre-Colombian picture
> manuscript of 8-Deer Tiger's Claw.
Does anyone know if this "36-foot long, brightly-colored, painted
screenfold" was ever published in book form? (What would be the Spanish
title?) There's no mention of it in _UC_'s bibliography...
Proost,
Arthur.
Off Colour
>actually, that is not true. McCloud clearly claims that the hieroglyphs
>painted on the Tomb of Menna *are* comics.
Yeah, but they're a little different. Heiroglyphs, as they're being
discussed in this conversation, are taken to me the speciphic
characters/images for specific letters and worrds. Like, a picture of
a puddle of water means water. An owl means "M", that kind of thing.
The stuff on the tomb are "glyphs", but only so far as that they are
graphics, pictures. They represent things. The glyphs that are the
other part of the argument represent letters and specific objects.
Think of it as the difference between an essay and a series of
paintings. They might both depict the same thing with images, but one
is abstract images (written languages) and one is direct
representation (paintings).
It's a very fine line, but I believe it exists.
Chris
Mark Rosenfelder
>> I'm not sure what to call what preceded it-- the style exemplified by
>> Topfler, Max und Moritz, Becassine, etc.
>
>They represent a single style about as much as _Palookaville_, _Asterix_
>and _Spawn_ do.
Well, I said I didn't know what to call it. 'Style' is too narrow.
Perhaps your 'form' will do.
>Busch was influenced by Töpffer, but formally _Max und
>Moritz_ was much closer to the children's literature of the day, most
>notably Hoffmann's _Der Struwwelpeter_. _Becassine_ idem dito, hardly a
>trace of Töpffer's innovations, but steeped in the 19th century
>tradition of 'Bilderbogen' and 'histoires illustrees'.
Granted the primacy of Topffer's innovations, how much were they really
imitated, as opposed to re-invented?
>> It certainly influenced the
>> newspaper strip, but it didn't do all the work in creating the genre.
>> You can see this in Herge's development: he was familiar with this sort of
>> bottom-captioned story, but he found American newspaper strips a
>> revelation.
>
>When and where did he say that? Sure, the stylistic influence is
>obvious. But formally? Hergé would probably have drawn captioned stories
>if his mentor Alain Saint-Ogan hadn't used word balloons in _Zig et
>Puce_ (where you'll find many ideas later--and better--used in
>_Tintin_). IMO the formal American influence on Hergé was not as direct
>as you imply but was filtered through Saint-Ogan.
See Numa Sadoul's _Entretiens avec Herge_ (1989 ed.), pp. 24-29.
[Herge:] Et ca devient _Totor, C.P. des Hannetons._ Ce n'etait pas
encore vraiment de la bande dessinee, mais du texte illustre ou, si
l'on prefere, des dessins avec legendes. [....]
C'est donc pour eviter d'illustrer un texte que je trouvais
mortellement ennuyeux que j'ai cree _Tintin_. Et c'est la que,
pour la premiere fois, comme dans les bandes dessinees americaines,
le texte et l'image sont mutuellement completes pour former un
langage nouveau.
(For non-francophones: Totor, Herge's early creation, "wasn't really a
comic strip, but an illustrated text"; in Tintin "for the first time, as
in the American comic strips, text and image mutually complemented each
other to form a new language.")
In the same context Herge mentions Zig et Puce, but he also mentions the
American strips which he saw directly (and before he met Saint-Ogan).
>So not using speech balloons was a deliberate artistic choice; made
>partly because Rowlandson didn't use them in his _Doctor Syntax_ (a
>direct influence on T.'s _Dr. Festus_), and perhaps partly because of an
>aversion to speech balloons, particularly when used in sequential
>narratives. This feeling is hard to understand now, but it was genuine
>in Töpffer's day and age.
And longer: Herge mentions a French magazine that reprinted Tintin
with explanatory captions beneath the pictures; the publishers felt that
people couldn't understand the strips alone. Herge protested till they
stopped it.
Curiously, Kyle Baker has partially returned to this method, separating
text and picture.
Mark Rosenfelder
>isn't that what hieroglyphs do, to convey information. The real crux of
>McClouds idealist quest for an originary point for comics, however, comes over
>the differentiation of egyptian hieroglyphs from egyptian painting (mark, you
>were correct, UC does make that distinction, but it is a false one) and the
>role of "pictorial." McCloud's def. of pictorial relies on the pictorial
>element indicating "at least some resemblance to the subject. but these glyphs
>represent oonly sounds, not unlike our alphabet."
Someone else said it was a fine line... only it isn't. If you knew
Ancient Egyptian, you'd *read* the hieroglyphics. You might note and
enjoy the aesthetic effect, but it'd be *language*, completely and easily
separable from the pictures. Note that hieroglyphics were what we'd call
a display face. For everyday use they wrote in a simplified 'font' called
demotic, in which the pictorial aspect of the script was almost lost (as
in modern Chinese).
It *is* the same point as 'Bob' makes on page 8, as you note; and McCloud
rightly changes his definition in response. It's just not useful to
define written text as 'comics'.
>why the need for "resemblance" for pictorial
>eloements. what does an abstarct expressionist work from deKoonig "resemble"
>or what does Jim WQoodring's "Pupshaw" resemble?
Well, I'd say that's what McCloud gets for insisting on starting out, in
good academic style, with a definition. IMHO that's not how categories
work, anyway. When we actually *use* words we don't have little formulas
in mind, so much as prototypes and ranges of acceptable variation.
Anyway, when McCloud really gets going I think he covers this angle-- see
all the stuff about abstraction in chapter 2.
>Mark, having spent way too many hours in literature classes, I am unclear
>wha6t you mean by genre, and its difference from medium? Genre as in men in
>tights versus romance, or tales of hippies, or anthropomorphic animals? Is
>this what you mean by genre?
Not exactly; I was thinking of what makes (say) American comic strips, or
comic books, a recognizable category: a set of conventions, a language,
used by both creators and readers, as well as a market where the goods are
available. Of course McCloud is trying to talk about comics as a *medium*;
but he spends most of the book on the conventions of three major schools,
or genres, or whatever they are-- American comics, European BDs, and
manga. Much of what he says about gutters, or iconicity, or time, is
probably *not* true of Mayan codices...
Searching for the first comic strip seems to me very much like searching
for the first science fiction. The problem in both cases is that the
early examples might not have been perceived by their creators and readers
as different from other kinds of art-- Frankenstein, for instance, was in
its time a novel, not a sf novel. Sf coalesced as a genre, as a
recognizable thing, a market, with conventions of its own, early in this
century.
My impression is that it's the same with comics-- that Topffer is like
Mary Shelley-- he created things whose form and content are like what we
recognize today as comics; but he didn't create a market, a category, a
genre for that sort of thing.
Duncan
Slink43809 wrote:
Well I was picking up from what Todd said about defining comics genres in such a
way that the stuff we are mostly interested in on this ng (ie UG, indie etc.) can
be seperated from the stuff we're mostly not (ie the dominant genre, superheroes -
or sub-sub-genre. If you made one of those crappy tree diagrams of comics history
& went down the branch marked 'heroic', then off the smaller branch markes
'heroic: speculative fiction', there'd be an even smaller branch, twig even,
labelled 'superheroes'. And that twig holds up the entire tree. Only that analogy
doesn't work because the tree would have to be upside down, but you know what I
mean) for the purposes of creating seperate ngs.
Anyway, point is, since there *are* interesting superhero comics out there, you
can't make a useful division according to genre - so we're in agreement, I think.
The problem is with aesthetic judgement. You just said: "Does it really matter
...if it is done exceptionally well?" That's really unanswerable unless you define
what you mean by "exceptionally well".
Having said all that, I think you could make a rough 'n ready division by first,
publisher & second, writer. So Fantagraphics, say, would be category 1 (non-super
heroes), Marvel, with a couple of exceptions (the first five years of the Epic
line; the first 24 issues of Conan; the early-70s Marvel/Kitchen Sink
collaboration, Comix Book - add your own) would be in category 2 (super heroes).
But you can see it's already getting complicated & we haven't got to Image yet,
let alone DC...
ronan
> I was attacking anything, it was claims made in this thread, which, it
> sounds like, turn out not even to be substantiated by the text people keep
> citing.
so without citing anything, even in your rebuttal (which cliams, which
lack of substantiation) you feel free to *sort of* cite McCloud, and
when someone proves your original assertion wrong, sparking a discussion
of origin, you get upset. boohoo.
go buy a copy of UC, or go to your library and check it out. then when
you make claims about what McCloud wrote, you will have a little bit
more credibility.
ronan
PS: Arthur, trying to track down publication info on the 8-Deer
manuscript.
Slink43809
that's what makes the world go round, 'innit? Scott
Bart Beaty
> Mark Rosenfelder <mark...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
> > You can see this in Herge's development: he was familiar with this sort of
> > bottom-captioned story, but he found American newspaper strips a
> > revelation.
>
> When and where did he say that? Sure, the stylistic influence is
> obvious. But formally? Hergé would probably have drawn captioned stories
> if his mentor Alain Saint-Ogan hadn't used word balloons in _Zig et
> Puce_ (where you'll find many ideas later--and better--used in
> _Tintin_). IMO the formal American influence on Hergé was not as direct
> as you imply but was filtered through Saint-Ogan.
Herge was exposed to US comics before he began Tintin by Leon Degrelle,
a journalist at Vingtieme Siecle. Specifically he cited McManus,
Herriman and Dirks as influences on his technique in an interview with
La Libre Belgique in 1975 that is cited by Pierre Assouline in his
biography of Herge. This is a quote from that interview:
"Je me suis dit qu'au fond, c'etait beuacoup plus agreable de raconter
une histoire comme cela putot que de mettre le texte dessous."
bart
Mark Rosenfelder
I asked Scott McCloud the name of of this codex, and he kindly replied:
"The Codex Nuttall." A Mixtec (not Mayan) picture manuscript. Dover has
(had?) a great cheap color edition at one point.
Arthur van Kruining
> Herge was exposed to US comics before he began Tintin by Leon Degrelle,
> a journalist at Vingtieme Siecle.
If this is the Leon Degrelle I think it is, he was more than a
journalist. The Leon Degrelle that was born in lovely Bouillon in 1906
was a publisher, a fascist politician and Belgium's no.1 nazi
sympathizer (he commanded the Wallonian forces on the 'Ostfront' and
became governor of the part of Belgium that was recovered by the Germans
during the Von Rundstedt Offensive). In short, a bad guy.
> Specifically he cited McManus,
> Herriman and Dirks as influences on his technique
The influences of McManus and Dirks are obvious. Basically Hergé seemed
to have used the former's clear line, got rid of the art deco and
replaced it with the latter's basic design. So from both artists he took
the clarity and left the redundant. Perhaps that's one of the reasons
why Hergé, instead of McManus, is considered the godfather of the ligne
clair. Of course, McManus's works aren't reprinted in near-unlimited
editions, so the general reader is bound to see Hergé as the main man.
But, *Herriman*? I don't see any Herriman in _Tintin_. Where is it? Did
Hergé say something about that?
Proost,
Arthur.
Robert Lee
> Robert Lee wrote:
> > I was attacking anything, it was claims made in this thread, which, it
> > sounds like, turn out not even to be substantiated by the text people keep
> > citing.
> so without citing anything, even in your rebuttal (which cliams, which
> lack of substantiation) you feel free to *sort of* cite McCloud, and
> when someone proves your original assertion wrong, sparking a discussion
> of origin, you get upset. boohoo.
Uh, dude, I think you may be mixing me up with one or more other people
involved in this thread. I never said boo about McCloud, either way.
> go buy a copy of UC, or go to your library and check it out. then when
> you make claims about what McCloud wrote, you will have a little bit
> more credibility.
If I flame ten people, will you send me a free copy?
Arthur van Kruining
Thanks! (And thanks to ronan for trying to find the bib. info.) I
immediately ordered a copy of this book. Amazon claims it can ship it in
24 hours. It costs about $14. 84 pages in full color. I hope it comes
with Caso's explanation...
BTW, Dover rules.
I mean it. So often when I'm looking for some odd little book it turns
out to have been (re-)published by Dover. I love everything about them.
Perhaps most of all that deeply reassuring "This is a permanent book".
Proost,
Arthur.
Bradly E. Peterson
deal:
>In article <1djdolp.1nd...@p737.wirehub.net>,
>Arthur van Kruining <arth...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>Mark Rosenfelder <mark...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure what to call what preceded it-- the style exemplified by
>>> Topfler, Max und Moritz, Becassine, etc.
>>
>>They represent a single style about as much as _Palookaville_, _Asterix_
>>and _Spawn_ do.
>
>Well, I said I didn't know what to call it. 'Style' is too narrow.
>Perhaps your 'form' will do.
A quote on "Style"...
"See, everyone is always confusing style with class. Reggae,
rastafarai, harcuts, what-have-you... These are all different
types of "style". Me, I got CLASS!"
(David Lee Roth)
heh...
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove OMELETTEDUFROMAGE from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"Obscene" = 'It turns me on and I don't like it'.
(Samael)
Jamie Andrews
Mark Rosenfelder <mark...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
>Start reading a page or two earlier; he says explicitly that hieroglyphics
>are *not* comics. "Hieroglyphics" are Ancient Egyptian *writing*; they
>are not comics any more than a page of Chinese text is comics. What
>McCloud claims are comics are the *pictures with writing* on Menna's tomb.
>As in the Mayan example, it may seem hard to divide the pictures from the
>writing-- but not if you know the writing involved.
I think you are mis-remembering here. What McCloud claims
is comics (or proto-comics) is the sequence of pictures
describing the sequence of steps in the grain harvest. There is
writing associated with them, but McCloud's point is that the
pictures form a sequence when read in the correct path.
As to hieroglyphics, it is true that people who could read
hieroglyphics at that time would not normally interpret them as
pictures. However, it is also true that Egyptian art used a
huge number of symbols, some abstract and some pictorial, that
were also hieroglyphics or parts of hieroglyphics. Human or
deity figures were shown holding or resting on hieroglyphics, or
in the exact shape of hieroglyphics; gods were shown with their
heads replaced by hieroglyphics; the parts of pharaohs' names
were rearranged in "rebuses" of symbols; even the negative space
between elements of sculptures was arranged in the shape of
hieroglyphics. See Richard Wilkinson's _Reading Egyptian Art_
(Thames & Hudson 1994, ISBN 0500277516) for more details.
So in a sense, Egyptian art and writing could be merged in
ways that are not possible in Roman-alphabet-based languages.
This was helped by the fact that Egyptian art was highly iconic,
and not usually intended to reproduce real-world forms
completely accurately. Perhaps the resistance to comics (and
Impressionism, etc.) by "serious" artists in the 19th century
arose from the fact that representationality was one of the
highest concerns at that time, and the iconic was considered
"primitive". It is impossible to work words into art without
departing from the idea of a rectangular surface, standing by
itself, having only a strictly representational picture in it.
Captions or word balloons have to come into it somehow.
Hogarth's "Rake's Progress" and "Harlot's Progress" were
sequences of pictures, but each was in a separate frame AFAIR.
Well, I'm just making random connections now. Take it as
you will.
--Jamie.
andrews .uwo } Merge these lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)
Arthur van Kruining
> Perhaps the resistance to comics (and
> Impressionism, etc.) by "serious" artists in the 19th century
What resistance do you mean? The picture stories, which, according to
Töpffer, "critics disregard and scholars hardly notice", were in all
probability broadsheets, children's stories and that kind stuff--not
comics. AFAIK Baudelaire's aversion to speech balloons did not mean he
was against comics. And we all know that Goethe was a great promotor of
Töpffer's comics; so was Xavier or Joseph de Maistre (I forgot which). I
only know of resistance from educational circles, who thought Busch's
comics were too cruel for kids.
> arose from the fact that representationality was one of the
> highest concerns at that time, and the iconic was considered
> "primitive".
No. Comics weren't judged as academic drawings in sequence, but rather
as sequential caricatures or cartoons. The latter were broadly accepted,
bought and admired.
Besides, on the realism-iconic scale most 19th-century comics were
pretty well left of center.
> It is impossible to work words into art without
> departing from the idea of a rectangular surface, standing by
> itself, having only a strictly representational picture in it.
There are plenty examples from religious art to disprove this. The text
scrolls in these images, often containing Longinus' words from John
19:34 ("Vere filius Dei erat iste"), were the direct ancestors of the
modern speech balloon.
> Captions or word balloons have to come into it somehow.
Captions were used in broadsheets for centuries.
> Hogarth's "Rake's Progress" and "Harlot's Progress" were
> sequences of pictures, but each was in a separate frame AFAIR.
Yep, and sold separately. They were also avalaible as paintings. But
those were a little more expensive.
What if Hogarth hadn't had such a mind for business? He might have
continued making one-shots instead of those lucrative series. His
followers, like Rowlandson and Ramberg, wouldn't have anybody to follow.
And worse, Töpffer wouldn't have the sequential Rowlandson to follow. No
Töpffer, no Busch; no Busch, no Dirks etc. etc. A disaster for comics!
Proost,
Arthur.