GA Books are "purely ugly" and the art has a "soulless emptiness" 0

[esquirecomics]

I recently purchased and read a copy of The Comics by Coulton Waugh (MacMillan, 1947).

 

 

Coulton Waugh was a painter, comic strip artist, teacher and author whose book about the seminal history of cartooning, The Comics, was one of the first serious examinations of the medium. Waugh was one of the main artists who worked on Milton Caniff's Dickie Dare strip.

 

The book, which is 354 pages in length (plus an index) is not about comic books. It is about the history of comic newspaper strips and their characters. It offers a fascinating insight into the subject and I definitely recommend it. I really enjoyed reading it.

 

But I would be remiss in not sharing this "interesting" page from the last chapter of the book where Waugh reluctantly and with disdain discusses the NEW (although already 15 years old by then) medium of comic books.

 

[HouseofComics.Com]

Classic!

[Flex Mentallo]

Very reminiscent of the conservative French art critics response to the Fauvists, whom they called "wild beasts".

[rjpb]

Pretty much the way I felt about most of Marvel's output circa 1991

[catrick339]

The thing is, Waugh's not entirely wrong. MOST comic book artists early on were failed or wannabe strip artists, either they couldn't make the cut or were still honing their skills.

 

Look at the art on titles like Flash Gordon, Tarzan, Terry and the Pirates, even Popeye (Thimble Theater) and compare 'em with the early GA stories and the comics suffer badly in comparison.

 

Which is not to say that there isn't a certain buoyant, energetic excitement in much of the early art, and of course by the end of WW2 this spankin' new art form had generated some pure geniuses on its own.

 

Artists like Lou Fine, Will Eisner, Jack Cole, Schomberg, etc can hold their heads high amongst the best of the strip field.

 

But even the most mad dog of fans have to admit there was some real crapola published in the early GA stuff.

[catrick339]

(And yes, I'm familiar with Sturgeon's Law, "Ninety percent of EVERYTHING is crapola", but it seems to me that the percentage runs especially high in the early GA books)

[tth2]

The thing is, Waugh's not entirely wrong. MOST comic book artists early on were failed or wannabe strip artists, either they couldn't make the cut or were still honing their skills.

 

Look at the art on titles like Flash Gordon, Tarzan, Terry and the Pirates, even Popeye (Thimble Theater) and compare 'em with the early GA stories and the comics suffer badly in comparison.

 

Which is not to say that there isn't a certain buoyant, energetic excitement in much of the early art, and of course by the end of WW2 this spankin' new art form had generated some pure geniuses on its own.

 

Artists like Lou Fine, Will Eisner, Jack Cole, Schomberg, etc can hold their heads high amongst the best of the strip field.

 

But even the most mad dog of fans have to admit there was some real crapola published in the early GA stuff.

(thumbs u

[tth2]

The guy must have been looking at a Timely book when he wrote: "It seems to be an axiom in the comic-book world that color which screams, shrieks with the strongest possible discord, is good."

[MrBedrock]

The guy must have been looking at a Timely book when he wrote: "It seems to be an axiom in the comic-book world that color which screams, shrieks with the strongest possible discord, is good."

He definitely was.

That's why us kids, with our screaming punk music and discordant video games, laugh at the way the writer and Tim gel their blue hair and wear their pants buckled around their chest.

[Cat-Man_America]

I recently purchased and read a copy of The Comics by Coulton Waugh (MacMillan, 1947).

 

 

Coulton Waugh was a painter, comic strip artist, teacher and author whose book about the seminal history of cartooning, The Comics, was one of the first serious examinations of the medium. Waugh was one of the main artists who worked on Milton Caniff's Dickie Dare strip.

 

The book, which is 354 pages in length (plus an index) is not about comic books. It is about the history of comic newspaper strips and their characters. It offers a fascinating insight into the subject and I definitely recommend it. I really enjoyed reading it.

 

But I would be remiss in not sharing this "interesting" page from the last chapter of the book where Waugh reluctantly and with disdain discusses the NEW (although already 15 years old by then) medium of comic books.

 

 

[font:Times New Roman]What I find amusing is that Coulton Waugh starts off criticizing the quality of paper used in the production of comic books when he worked in a similar medium as a newspaper strip cartoonist. Newsprint paper is virtually the same quality with the exception of the heavier stock used in glossy comic book covers, but somehow that oversight eluded him.

 

I recall reading about similar criticisms of vulgarity being leveled at newspaper comic strips earlier in the century, but I presume that was long before Mr. Waugh's involvement in the medium.[/font]

[Cat-Man_America]

The thing is, Waugh's not entirely wrong. MOST comic book artists early on were failed or wannabe strip artists, either they couldn't make the cut or were still honing their skills.

 

Look at the art on titles like Flash Gordon, Tarzan, Terry and the Pirates, even Popeye (Thimble Theater) and compare 'em with the early GA stories and the comics suffer badly in comparison.

 

Which is not to say that there isn't a certain buoyant, energetic excitement in much of the early art, and of course by the end of WW2 this spankin' new art form had generated some pure geniuses on its own.

 

Artists like Lou Fine, Will Eisner, Jack Cole, Schomberg, etc can hold their heads high amongst the best of the strip field.

 

But even the most mad dog of fans have to admit there was some real crapola published in the early GA stuff.

 

 

[font:Times New Roman]I'm not sure that I agree with your views on early GA art. Sure, there was a lot of weak writing in the GA, partially because of the time constraints placed by deadlines and the page space available which limited the kind of stories that could be told. Also, the market was a younger, brasher, less adult audience than family oriented newspaper comics.

 

That said, there were lots of aspiring artists, some of whom would've made the cut with the right inspiration for a newspaper strip, others who just never got the break, but I'm persuaded by the evidence that among those who did make the cut, there was just as much mediocre art in newspaper comics.

 

Where the difference comes in is with the level of storytelling. Newspaper strip cartoonists either possessed great writing skills or they co-produced their strips with good writers who could adapt to the tight serialized visuals required of the medium.[/font]

[Bookery]

there was just as much mediocre art in newspaper comics

 

No way!

 

 

[Bookery]

On the other hand, as much as I love Centaur comics... maybe the first book Waugh glanced at was this...

 

 

 

[mrmyst]

The guy must have been looking at a Timely book when he wrote: "It seems to be an axiom in the comic-book world that color which screams, shrieks with the strongest possible discord, is good."

He definitely was.

That's why us kids, with our screaming punk music and discordant video games, laugh at the way the writer and Tim gel their blue hair and wear their pants buckled around their chest.

That's frikin hilarious!!

 

The early GA provided an economic opportunity for folks - many of whom were teenagers or in their early 20s - who liked to draw. This was the Depression...jobs were scarce. Much of the art in the early period was crude and unprofessional, like work in any commercial field that suddenly explodes in opportunity and the Man needs workers. I love the crudeness of many artists who nonetheless obviously approached their work with earnestness - Fletcher Hanks for one example.

[Bookery]

The guy must have been looking at a Timely book when he wrote: "It seems to be an axiom in the comic-book world that color which screams, shrieks with the strongest possible discord, is good."

He definitely was.

That's why us kids, with our screaming punk music and discordant video games, laugh at the way the writer and Tim gel their blue hair and wear their pants buckled around their chest.

 

 

[Cat-Man_America]

The guy must have been looking at a Timely book when he wrote: "It seems to be an axiom in the comic-book world that color which screams, shrieks with the strongest possible discord, is good."

He definitely was.

That's why us kids, with our screaming punk music and discordant video games, laugh at the way the writer and Tim gel their blue hair and wear their pants buckled around their chest.

 

 

[font:Times New Roman]The mental image of exposed sexagenarian buttcrack is no laughing matter![/font]

[catrick339]

The thing is, Waugh's not entirely wrong. MOST comic book artists early on were failed or wannabe strip artists, either they couldn't make the cut or were still honing their skills.

 

Look at the art on titles like Flash Gordon, Tarzan, Terry and the Pirates, even Popeye (Thimble Theater) and compare 'em with the early GA stories and the comics suffer badly in comparison.

 

Which is not to say that there isn't a certain buoyant, energetic excitement in much of the early art, and of course by the end of WW2 this spankin' new art form had generated some pure geniuses on its own.

 

Artists like Lou Fine, Will Eisner, Jack Cole, Schomberg, etc can hold their heads high amongst the best of the strip field.

 

But even the most mad dog of fans have to admit there was some real crapola published in the early GA stuff.

 

 

[font:Times New Roman]I'm not sure that I agree with your views on early GA art. Sure, there was a lot of weak writing in the GA, partially because of the time constraints placed by deadlines and the page space available which limited the kind of stories that could be told. Also, the market was a younger, brasher, less adult audience than family oriented newspaper comics.

 

That said, there were lots of aspiring artists, some of whom would've made the cut with the right inspiration for a newspaper strip, others who just never got the break, but I'm persuaded by the evidence that among those who did make the cut, there was just as much mediocre art in newspaper comics.

 

Where the difference comes in is with the level of storytelling. Newspaper strip cartoonists either possessed great writing skills or they co-produced their strips with good writers who could adapt to the tight serialized visuals required of the medium.[/font]

 

Well, it's true, newspaper strips were, in general, pretty well written. Takes a good writer indeed to do a daily serial without repetition and with a hook every day. And there was limited space in the newspapers, you had to be a cut above to get a chance at a syndication deal.

 

So let's take the Big Kahuna from the era, Superman.

 

1938, just 2 years after the first original content comics, if memory serves. Failure in getting a syndication deal. First Action story was cut up and restriped newspaper dailys (Sundays? I don't recall) and even then it was as major experiment, with Supes not appearing on the cover again for several issues. Let's face it, it's amateurish.

 

Better than I could do mind you,

 

Nevertheless, it rang a distinct chord with the public, and practically singlehanded jumpstarted a brand new industry into a wild success. But that's only one story out of an anthology book, one success out of a dozen or so trial stories. I don't own an Action 1 and am unlikely to do so, barring a happy accident with a garage sale or a lotto ticket, but I've read the FFE reprint, and the rest of it is.... okay to dull.

 

Even the mediocre newspaper strips of the day were well done, professionally drawn and inked, and reproduced in a large size, all under the guiding hand of one of the big newspaper syndicates. The utter trash never saw the light of day, the syndicate editors didn't let it get printed in the first place.

 

On the other hand comics editors and printers were HOWLING for product, and would take some pretty loathsome stuff to fill the XX number of pages of content they needed, every single month, in and out.

 

If you didn't have product to print and distribute, you made no money. zero.

 

Different packaging, far different outcomes, and Waugh was correct IMO. You had to sell your funnybook pretty much with the cover alone to get the younkers to part with that precious dime, and garish catches the eye.

 

Timely sold a LOT of comics with kickarse covers and dubious content, LOL

 

 

[catrick339]

Oh, and y'know, to this very day I STILL don't understand the appeal of Fritzi Ritz, or Nancy and Sluggo.

[Cat-Man_America]

The thing is, Waugh's not entirely wrong. MOST comic book artists early on were failed or wannabe strip artists, either they couldn't make the cut or were still honing their skills.

 

Look at the art on titles like Flash Gordon, Tarzan, Terry and the Pirates, even Popeye (Thimble Theater) and compare 'em with the early GA stories and the comics suffer badly in comparison.

 

Which is not to say that there isn't a certain buoyant, energetic excitement in much of the early art, and of course by the end of WW2 this spankin' new art form had generated some pure geniuses on its own.

 

Artists like Lou Fine, Will Eisner, Jack Cole, Schomberg, etc can hold their heads high amongst the best of the strip field.

 

But even the most mad dog of fans have to admit there was some real crapola published in the early GA stuff.

 

 

[font:Times New Roman]I'm not sure that I agree with your views on early GA art. Sure, there was a lot of weak writing in the GA, partially because of the time constraints placed by deadlines and the page space available which limited the kind of stories that could be told. Also, the market was a younger, brasher, less adult audience than family oriented newspaper comics.

 

That said, there were lots of aspiring artists, some of whom would've made the cut with the right inspiration for a newspaper strip, others who just never got the break, but I'm persuaded by the evidence that among those who did make the cut, there was just as much mediocre art in newspaper comics.

 

Where the difference comes in is with the level of storytelling. Newspaper strip cartoonists either possessed great writing skills or they co-produced their strips with good writers who could adapt to the tight serialized visuals required of the medium.[/font]

 

Well, it's true, newspaper strips were, in general, pretty well written. Takes a good writer indeed to do a daily serial without repetition and with a hook every day. And there was limited space in the newspapers, you had to be a cut above to get a chance at a syndication deal.

 

So let's take the Big Kahuna from the era, Superman.

 

1938, just 2 years after the first original content comics, if memory serves. Failure in getting a syndication deal. First Action story was cut up and restriped newspaper dailys (Sundays? I don't recall) and even then it was as major experiment, with Supes not appearing on the cover again for several issues. Let's face it, it's amateurish.

 

Better than I could do mind you,

 

Nevertheless, it rang a distinct chord with the public, and practically singlehanded jumpstarted a brand new industry into a wild success. But that's only one story out of an anthology book, one success out of a dozen or so trial stories. I don't own an Action 1 and am unlikely to do so, barring a happy accident with a garage sale or a lotto ticket, but I've read the FFE reprint, and the rest of it is.... okay to dull.

 

Even the mediocre newspaper strips of the day were well done, professionally drawn and inked, and reproduced in a large size, all under the guiding hand of one of the big newspaper syndicates. The utter trash never saw the light of day, the syndicate editors didn't let it get printed in the first place.

 

On the other hand comics editors and printers were HOWLING for product, and would take some pretty loathsome stuff to fill the XX number of pages of content they needed, every single month, in and out.

 

If you didn't have product to print and distribute, you made no money. zero.

 

Different packaging, far different outcomes, and Waugh was correct IMO. You had to sell your funnybook pretty much with the cover alone to get the younkers to part with that precious dime, and garish catches the eye.

 

Timely sold a LOT of comics with kickarse covers and dubious content, LOL

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[font:Times New Roman]Notice that as soon as Superman became a hit in the comics (books) that it was picked up as a syndicated comic strip and ran for years, both as a color Sunday page and as dailies. I'm not sure how that plays into the theory that strips were subjectively superior in art and story if Superman is your example. If anything, it suggests that there is no real difference between comic books and comic strips qualitatively except 1) popular acceptance and 2) who green-lights publication.[/font]

 

[font:Times New Roman]M'thinks Timely gets knocked too much for content. The art certainly runs the gamut in quality although most stories are pretty routine, but some of the output was pretty darned good (S&K's Captain America, the great fire & water battles between the Torch & Subby, etc.). In the case of Miss Fury, the comic book was published simultaneous with a well respected syndicated comic strip along with the uniqueness of having a costumed hero created by one of the few female artists of the era to work in that genre (Tarpe Mills).[/font]

 

[mrmyst]

The war decimated Timely's staff, and the books suffered for it. IMHO, the best Timelys are pre-1943.