There is a difference between what is a 'personal opinion' and a 'cultural phenomenon.' The Three Musketeers are not widely recognized as comic book heroes, but Tarzan is. This is not opinion, this is fact.
Is a phenomenon actually fact, or merely a widely-shared opinion?  For example, 1977's STAR WARS was certainly a cultural phenomenon, but not everyone who saw STAR WARS liked it.  (Even George Lucas thought it fell short of what he was hoping for.)  Asking at the time if STAR WARS was the greatest film ever made would certainly get a majority of "yes" replies, but there would also be a lot of responses of "no."  As a result, the status of STAR WARS as greatest film ever is an opinion even though its influences on pop culture and Hollywood still echo today.  (It's status as blockbuster, however, would be fact because the box office receipts show it broke records for money made.)   I would think, objectively, that a "fact" is something that remains constant all across the board (if not on the Board.smiley: wink)   Does that make sense?  You said Tarzan is widely recognized as a comic book hero, and I agree with that, but he is not completely recognized as such by everyone.

If you allude to something that is already ingrained in a culture you cannot say that is merely personal opinion and ignore the cultural context.
Not sure that's entirely true.  Many books today that are currently considered "classics" of literature were often looked upon by the audiences of their day as lesser offerings upon initial publication.  (Hard to imagine that, in Edgar Allan Poe's day, short stories were almost looked upon as the bastard child of the publishing world.)  Our culture constantly changes and, as a result, reflects ever-changing tastes and sensibilities, so the context of each culture will be relative to that particular culture and its time.  (In the Seventies we might have been considered cool sporting an afro and displaying our disco moves on the dance floor.  Today, that look might still make us the center of attention, but for drastically different reasons.)

Scat already got in trouble with me because in his definition of the 'Adventure' genre he includes something as distinct and cultural well defined as the 'Crime' drama genre. They are two different things.

I'd say there are instances in that where you could both be right, depending on the particular example, as you have some titles that could crossover into more than one genre.  (First example coming to mind at the moment would be the movie ALIEN, which could be looked upon as both horror and sci-fi.)  No matter what the subject, it seems inevitable that some obscure exception can crop up.

If you write a book on the history of comics and don't mention Tarzan comics, your book would be incomplete. If you don't mention Three Musketeers comics no one will miss them (you should however mention Classics illustrated.).  If you are writing a book on Tarzan movies and don't mention Tarzan comics, no one will miss them.

Oh I agree; any history of the comics should mention Tarzan having been reinterpreted for the visual medium.  (You'd also have to toss in Hopalong Cassidy, Roy Rogers, Jerry Lewis, Don Rickles and other persons real or imagined who starred in their own series of comic books just for the sake of being complete.)  But the Musketeers weren't limited to just the Classics Illustrated entry.  Other comic companies (such as Marvel) adapted the novel, as well as tried to launch them as a monthly color comic book series.  (Can't recall if it was DC or Marvel...I seem to recall one company rounding out each Musketeer issue with a Robin Hood adventure, so there's yet another character to consider for inclusion.  And then there were the comic books based specifically on Walt Disney's ZORRO, as well as the other adaptations of Zorro, Lone Ranger, Captain Nemo, Sherlock Holmes, Doc Savage, et. al.)

I'm really not trying to argue with you, Herman, I'm just trying to better understand your criteria.  (I don't have a problem with either viewpoint regarding Tarzan; those who are entrenched on a particular side aren't going to change their feelings, so neither side has anything to gain by investing time and energy in the debate.)  Both Tarzan and the Three Musketeers were taken from literature, but is the basis for keeping Tarzan and not D'Artagnan & company simply a matter of frequency of their appearances in those four-color panels?  If the longevity of a character in a comic is the determining factor in tagging that character a comic book hero, then what would be the number of issues or appearances that are required for it qualify?  I guess what I'm asking is, what are the parameters and how rigid/flexible are they?  (Or am I overlooking what you're trying to say, and you have another standard used as a guideline?)
  

Last Edited By: BijouBob8mm Jul 13 11 4:57 PM. Edited 3 times.