Top 10 most Influential and Historically Important GA Books 2 2

[OtherEric]

1 hour ago, Robot Man said:

Of course I’m a little biased, but concur on MAD #1. Created a whole new genre that influenced tons of artists and comic fans. Still stumbling along even today. 

Speaking of influences, not GA but how about ZAP #1? Ground breaking book that also created a genre. No doubt about how much Crumb was influenced by MAD and probably influenced many himself.

The original question was GA.  If we go beyond GA, then very much a yes on Zap 1.  Not the first underground, but absolutely the one that catapulted the undergrounds into prominence.  And even beyond the undergrounds themselves, led into the whole idea of independent comics, and creator owned comics, and to a lesser degree the direct market. 

[Bookery]

Of course, some of the most "historically significant and influential" books in comics history aren't comics at all.  Without Clark Savage, there is no Clark Kent.  Without The Shadow and the Black Bat, there is no Batman.  Masked heroes abounded by the dozens (hundreds?) in the pulps long before comics adopted them.  Though the format is adored today, comics were simply a way to tell pulpish stories in a way accessible to younger audiences than the pulps were meant for.  In this regard, one could argue that the comics that struck out on their own without the pulp influences may have been more significant... as has been mentioned, Classics Illustrated, Walt Disney's Comics & Stories, etc., and indeed, they certainly had larger circulations than many of the super-hero and action-themed comics.

[tabcom]

March 1st, 2009.

The day in history that tabcom was influencent into begining his GA comic collection.

[adamstrange]

16 minutes ago, Bookery said:

indeed, they certainly had larger circulations than many of the super-hero and action-themed comics.

That occurred only after superheros made the comics market viable.

[bluechip]

20 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Dr. Occult first appeared in October 1935.  He's a magical hero.  He's not a "superhero" in the sense of Superman.  He's more like Lee Falk's comic strip creation Mandrake, who pre-dated Dr. Occult (as did the Phantom Magician).  I don't view Dr. Occult as a Superman precursor in any significant way (and Superman was being created by S&S before Dr. Occult).  He looks a lot more like a mystical Flash Gordon than Superman in those early New Funs.  The most abused term in comics collecting is "try out."

Similarly, the Clock wears a mask.  But, then again, so does Lee Falk's comic strip creation the Phantom and radio's Green Hornet, who predate the Clock.   There were a lot of early "masked detectives" like the Clock, including the Shadow (masks bottom half of face), Crimson Avenger (pre-dates Batman in Detective), Green Hornet, etc.  In fact, the Phantom wears a full costume (sorry Batman) before the Clock.  I don't view these masked detectives, or even the Phantom, as a true superhero.  

So I'm not sure that either of those comics were particularly "historical," and I know they weren't particularly "influential."  So they likely don't make my top 25, and get nowhere near my top 5.

 

As I recall it Siegel himself said that Dr. Occult was a "dry run" for Superman.  They were developing Supes before that but they couldn't sell him, so they gave powers to a character they had sold, with the idea that he could either morph into the character they weren't able to sell or that if the "dry run" worked the publishers might be more inclined to let them run with Superman.   The gap between Occult as a powered character and the intro of Superman suggests it didn't help convince anyone.   That would make me, if not others, less inclined to call it "influential" because Superman might have debuted at the same time in the same way with or without it.   Same, I would say, applies to "Best Comics 1," since it was a failure and we didn't see another character like him for years and not one that succeeded until the 60s.   But even failures can be, and are, very interesting. and their failure only adds to their rarity.  That makes them collectible, if not "influential."  

Edited March 19, 2019 by bluechip

[Pat Calhoun]

Jumbo Comics #1  Sept 1938 marked the beginning of the reign of Sheena, the Jungle Queen, and thus launched Fiction House's empire of GGA adventure comics.

[Knightsofold]

On 3/18/2019 at 1:50 PM, sfcityduck said:

Here's my top 5 most historically important and influential GA comics in Chronological Order are:

* Funnies on Parade - 1st true comic book format comic publication (this decided the format for comics as we know them);

* Famous Funnies 1 - 1st newsstand comic (this 10 center led the way to the dominant form of mass market distribution of comics)

* New Fun Comics 1 - first comic book to feature entirely original material and first DC (set off the wave of non-strip reprint comics)

* Action 1 - Birth of the modern comic book superhero (Superman set off the wave of superhero comics)

* Superman 1 - 1st single superhero character comic (this set off a wave of single character superhero comics that became the dominant genre in comic history)

Yep, Detective 27 doesn't make my top 5 (what does it have going for it other than introducing a popular character?  That's not enough to be "important and influential" in my book.  I'm not sure the D27 Batman was all that influential in the GA.  Arguably, the introduction of Robin was more influential on both the direction of Batman and on other features.). 

And to further shock, Captain America 1 may not make my top 20 or 25 because he was just another Shield rip-off, and lacked the staying power to survive the GA. As a character in the GA, Cap America is far less important to comic history than Captain Marvel, and Whiz 2 is way more important and influential than CA 1.  

I could go on, but I'd just end up arguing all day.  The key is don't confuse "currently popular character" with the notion of "historically important and influential."  

 

The only thing Captain America Comics #1 “ripped off” from the Shield could be the shape of Cap’s 1st shield.  By December 1940 the Shield never even fought a single nazi in his comics.  By the debut of Captain America Comics #1 MLJ only had two covers that directly depicted a military force as nazi, or even german for that matter.  Covers with nazi markings (Top notch 2, and Pep 3) were halted all together as MLJ played the “safe card” route by not getting political. I commend MLJ for being the first to identify Nazi’s on a cover (Top Notch 2), but the Pep 3 cover months later probably slipped through the editing, and was published after Timely had clearly depicted Nazis as evil both inside and outside the comic book.

Captain America Comics #1 was intentionaly created as interventionalist propoganda.  Hardly a comparison to the impotent MLJ stories.  And hardly historically insignificant.

[Jaydogrules]

1 hour ago, Knightsofold said:

The only thing Captain America Comics #1 “ripped off” from the Shield could be the shape of Cap’s 1st shield.  By December 1940 the Shield never even fought a single nazi in his comics.  By the debut of Captain America Comics #1 MLJ only had two covers that directly depicted a military force as nazi, or even german for that matter.  Covers with nazi markings (Top notch 2, and Pep 3) were halted all together as MLJ played the “safe card” route by not getting political. I commend MLJ for being the first to identify Nazi’s on a cover (Top Notch 2), but the Pep 3 cover months later probably slipped through the editing, and was published after Timely had clearly depicted Nazis as evil both inside and outside the comic book.

Captain America Comics #1 was intentionaly created as interventionalist propoganda.  Hardly a comparison to the impotent MLJ stories.  And hardly historically insignificant.

Agreed. 

Any list without Cap 1 on it is hard to be taken seriously.  

-J.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[adamstrange]

23 minutes ago, Knightsofold said:

but the Pep 3 cover months later probably slipped through the editing, and was published after Timely had clearly depicted Nazis as evil both inside and outside the comic book.

Top Notch 2 was cover dated Jan 1940.  Pep 3 April 1940.  Most likely they waited for returns on the Top Notch and decided to try again on the Pep 3.  They probably didn't get any boost in circulation so didn't repeat.  It looks like only Daring 3 and Marvel Mys 4 came out prior to Pep 3.

Dell, Fiction House and Nedor all had Nazi covers before Cap 1 came out.  Uncle Sam from Quality was the second patriotic hero and had a Nazi cover by issue 7 in Jan 1941.

[sfcityduck]

54 minutes ago, Knightsofold said:

The only thing Captain America Comics #1 “ripped off” from the Shield could be the shape of Cap’s 1st shield.  By December 1940 the Shield never even fought a single nazi in his comics.  By the debut of Captain America Comics #1 MLJ only had two covers that directly depicted a military force as nazi, or even german for that matter.  Covers with nazi markings (Top notch 2, and Pep 3) were halted all together as MLJ played the “safe card” route by not getting political. I commend MLJ for being the first to identify Nazi’s on a cover (Top Notch 2), but the Pep 3 cover months later probably slipped through the editing, and was published after Timely had clearly depicted Nazis as evil both inside and outside the comic book.

Captain America Comics #1 was intentionaly created as interventionalist propoganda.  Hardly a comparison to the impotent MLJ stories.  And hardly historically insignificant.

In addition to Top Notch 2 (1/40), the first comic cover with a hero punching Nazi's was Amazing Man 9 (2/40), which came out over a year before CA 1.  Before that, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were depicted as villains in comics.  So, no, Captain America was not a "first" on this front.  And, yes, Captain America was a Shield (started 14 months earlier) rip-off as a patriotic superhero, including the very design of Cap's original shield and the red/white/blue costume.  Is CA 1 historically significant because it went full tilt against the Nazi's in 1941?  You can make that case, and maybe you are right.  But, in my view, because FDR, in his "Arsenal of Democracy Speech" in December 1940 (before the 3/41 CA 1), had effectively committed the US to go to war against Germany and Japan, CA 1 was a reflection of its times.  It is a really cool book and series, but I think the historical  import of CA 1 is a bit overstated by collectors.  Reasonable minds can differ. I'm just not sure the "WW II superhero comic genre" is more important than other genres I'd put on the list.

 

[sfcityduck]

1 hour ago, Jaydogrules said:

Agreed. 

Anybody with a Top 10 list without Cap 1 on it is not to be taken seriously.  

-J.

If you aren't focused exclusively on superhero character debuts, it is not at all unreasonable to find 10 other candidates more worthy than CA 1. 

[sacentaur]

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

If you aren't focused exclusively on superhero character debuts, it is not at all unreasonable to find 10 other candidates more worthy than CA 1. 

Good response, but ... 

[bluechip]

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

In addition to Top Notch 2 (1/40), the first comic cover with a hero punching Nazi's was Amazing Man 9 (2/40), which came out over a year before CA 1.  Before that, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were depicted as villains in comics.  So, no, Captain America was not a "first" on this front.  And, yes, Captain America was a Shield (started 14 months earlier) rip-off as a patriotic superhero, including the very design of Cap's original shield and the red/white/blue costume.  Is CA 1 historically significant because it went full tilt against the Nazi's in 1941?  You can make that case, and maybe you are right.  But, in my view, because FDR, in his "Arsenal of Democracy Speech" in December 1940 (before the 3/41 CA 1), had effectively committed the US to go to war against Germany and Japan, CA 1 was a reflection of its times.  It is a really cool book and series, but I think the historical  import of CA 1 is a bit overstated by collectors.  Reasonable minds can differ. I'm just not sure the "WW II superhero comic genre" is more important than other genres I'd put on the list.

 

Since books hit the stands three months before the cover date and were generally produced a couple months before that, Cap 1 was on the stands before FDR's speech in December, 1940 and was produced months before.  The Top Notch issue would have been on the stands only a few weeks after the Nazis invaded Poland, marking the official start of WW2

[sacentaur]

Some opinions on prior mentions:

-As much as I adore More Fun 14, it would not make my list (for reasons already stated above).

-Mad 1 is a very good choice.

-Pep 22 would seem to be another good call.

-While Action 1 and Detective 27 are obvious, Captain America 1 wouldn’t be on the list (as cool a book as it is).

-New Fun 1 may be worthy of consideration.

-All Star 3 has a solid claim.

-Detective 38 should be a lock.

-All Star 8/Sensation 1/Wonder Woman 1 (take your pick), yup.

-Famous Funnies 1, certainly.

-Marvel Comics 1, big key.

Depending on your world view, DC dominates the field...

 

 

 

[Wayne-Tec]

When you dig through history, many who might not have known would be disappointed to discover how much material was borrowed, swiped or at least "inspired" by something that was already done before it. In the case of The Shield vs. Cap, it's not a matter of pretending that Cap was the first of his kind. He wasn't and didn't need to be. The extents Simon & Kirby went to directly attack Nazism and Hitler is significant. Further, the enduring legacy of Captain America makes many of the things that went into his creation important. I don't want to short-change smaller publishers or other remarkable firsts, but many generations of comic book readers came up reading some telling of Cap's origins, relating to it, being drawn in by it, etc.

Batman was hardly the first of his kind. But he is much more significant than Zorro, or The Shadow and others. I understand it's fun to speak out against the mainstream characters, who borrowed so much from their predecessors. In the end, I suppose it all comes down to one's criteria and how we define what's historically significant.

[szav]

As stated when I started this thread, I don't proclaim to have a very in depth knowledge of comic book history, but I will offer up one book that I haven't seen any mention of yet that surprises me because it seems like a clear top ten candidate, and that's Young Romance #1. 

As far as I know this is held as the first of tis kind, a book dedicated exclusively to romance stories targeted at a female audience.  Whether you collect romance or not you have to respect its place in history.  It's often quoted that romance held as high as a 40% market share at its height.  It seems like such a bold departure from what was offered at the time too.  Course I could be wrong, were there comic book precursors to Young Romance #1, like titles that already had a number of continually running romance stories? or did romance comics just rip off pulps too?  Would love to know the experts opinions on this book, or whatever they would credit to bringing this genre to the forefront.

[sfcityduck]

38 minutes ago, szav said:

As stated when I started this thread, I don't proclaim to have a very in depth knowledge of comic book history, but I will offer up one book that I haven't seen any mention of yet that surprises me because it seems like a clear top ten candidate, and that's Young Romance #1. 

As far as I know this is held as the first of tis kind, a book dedicated exclusively to romance stories targeted at a female audience.  Whether you collect romance or not you have to respect its place in history.  It's often quoted that romance held as high as a 40% market share at its height.  It seems like such a bold departure from what was offered at the time too.  Course I could be wrong, were there comic book precursors to Young Romance #1, like titles that already had a number of continually running romance stories? or did romance comics just rip off pulps too?  Would love to know the experts opinions on this book, or whatever they would credit to bringing this genre to the forefront.

From what I understand, it is the first romance comic and it is an important genre because it expanded the readership of comics.  The stories were generally more adult, and more female friendly.  And it was by S&K.  Maybe their most original contribution to comics.

[Scrooge]

1 hour ago, szav said:

Whether you collect romance or not you have to respect its place in history.  It's often quoted that romance held as high as a 40% market share at its height

Important, yes; significant, maybe not. It's surprising how long it took for Romance to become a genre in comics but it was bound to happen post-war when genres started to proliferate. Natural new genres, modeled after the pulps, would be Western, Detective and Romance. These 3 genres had represented the top 60% of pulps production in the late '30's to the '40's in the following order: Western then Detective then Romance (followed closely by Adventure and Sports). Detective became Crime for comics. As the genres emerged, it took a while for the market to stabilize with both Romance and Western experiencing serious gluts as publishers rushed to compete. So, the first Romance title certainly deserves recognition but does not I believe deserve a special rank in the Top 10. The first long lasting Western comics were arguably Roy Rogers and The Lone Ranger emerging from the Four Color series or Red Ryder Comics. I would not put any in the Top 10.

[Joesmith817]

4 hours ago, Wayne-Tec said:

Batman was hardly the first of his kind. But he is much more significant than Zorro, or The Shadow and others. I understand it's fun to speak out against the mainstream characters, who borrowed so much from their predecessors. In the end, I suppose it all comes down to one's criteria and how we define what's historically significant.

Batman is interesting, the character and the world built around him. When examining his history and the characters that preceded him, I do think its important to distinguish a critieria when discussing his historical significance. For me, what the character borrowed from other characters must be separated from the new concepts he introduced to superhero fiction.

Sure, the character Batman or The Bat-Man first appeared in Tec 27, but the character in Tec 27 isn't the same character we know and love today. He evolved over time. Tec 27's story didn't really add anything new to fiction. The word "batman" or bat-man/bat-men wasn't even a new word. It had been used before by REH in Wings in the Night (a short story in 1932) and in Green Eyes of Bast (a novel by Sax Rohmer in 1920). The word may have been even more common at that time, I'm not sure. Those are just two examples that I know. I've also heard that the story in Tec 27 was influenced by a Shadow story. I don't know if that is true or not, but I do believe the assessment that it wasn't a groundbreaking, new story. 

I would be willing to argue that the character in Tec 27 wasn't any better than any of the other bat-themed characters (or a lot of other characters in other genres) at the time, and I think its important to study what new concepts Batman introduced to superhero fiction. The name Commissioner Gordon, the word Batman, and the word Gotham had all been around before Kane and Finger used them. So, when discussing the historical significance of Batman, I think it is important to discover what new ideas and concepts he brought to the genre and to fiction or at least superhero fiction. Introducing a young sidekick has already been mentioned. Utility belt? Batmobile? I'm not sure. I don't know if these ideas were new or not. 

I think we need to ask ourselves what made/makes him significant. We know the character outlived all the other bat characters but why? What gave him "staying power"? Why is he significant today and not Johnston McCulley's The Bat, Mary Roberts Rinehart The Bat, The Black Bat, Black Bat 2nd version, or Art Pinajian The Black Bat? The idea of a bat-themed character, hero or villain, wasn't brand new and significant, so what made Batman different? Why did he surpass characters that had influenced his creation like The Shadow, The Phantom, and Zorro? Why did he stick around like Sherlock Holmes, another character that influenced his creation?

When did he go from being a copycat or just another bat character to a trend setter?

[Mr bla bla]

30 minutes ago, Joesmith817 said:

Batman is interesting, the character and the world built around him. When examining his history and the characters that preceded him, I do think its important to distinguish a critieria when discussing his historical significance. For me, what the character borrowed from other characters must be separated from the new concepts he introduced to superhero fiction.

Sure, the character Batman or The Bat-Man first appeared in Tec 27, but the character in Tec 27 isn't the same character we know and love today. He evolved over time. Tec 27's story didn't really add anything new to fiction. The word "batman" or bat-man/bat-men wasn't even a new word. It had been used before by REH in Wings in the Night (a short story in 1932) and in Green Eyes of Bast (a novel by Sax Rohmer in 1920). The word may have been even more common at that time, I'm not sure. Those are just two examples that I know. I've also heard that the story in Tec 27 was influenced by a Shadow story. I don't know if that is true or not, but I do believe the assessment that it wasn't a groundbreaking, new story. 

I would be willing to argue that the character in Tec 27 wasn't any better than any of the other bat-themed characters (or a lot of other characters in other genres) at the time, and I think its important to study what new concepts Batman introduced to superhero fiction. The name Commissioner Gordon, the word Batman, and the word Gotham had all been around before Kane and Finger used them. So, when discussing the historical significance of Batman, I think it is important to discover what new ideas and concepts he brought to the genre and to fiction or at least superhero fiction. Introducing a young sidekick has already been mentioned. Utility belt? Batmobile? I'm not sure. I don't know if these ideas were new or not. 

I think we need to ask ourselves what made/makes him significant. We know the character outlived all the other bat characters but why? What gave him "staying power"? Why is he significant today and not Johnston McCulley's The Bat, Mary Roberts Rinehart The Bat, The Black Bat, Black Bat 2nd version, or Art Pinajian The Black Bat? The idea of a bat-themed character, hero or villain, wasn't brand new and significant, so what made Batman different? Why did he surpass characters that had influenced his creation like The Shadow, The Phantom, and Zorro? Why did he stick around like Sherlock Holmes, another character that influenced his creation?

When did he go from being a copycat or just another bat character to a trend setter?

Pretty far fetched deconstruction of Batman imho. Sorry im not convinced.