Talk:A Contract with God

Publication date

Indicia of copies indicate the work was first copyrighted in 1978, and Eisner's webpage also lists that as year of publication. However, some web sources indicate a publication date of 1976, and Eddie Campbell's Alec: How To Be An Artist gave the date as October of 1977. Hiding 09:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move

I moved this page again to bring into line with the naming convention, since the work's full title is A Contract with God: And Other Tenement Stories. A Contract with God and A Contract With God both redirect here. Hiding 09:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I've put it back where Wikipedia naming conventions actually recommend it belongs. Tverbeek 12:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jewish perspective content

Although I ain't really a scholar on Judaism myself, but I saw the comments on the WikiProject Judaism talk page, and as someone kind of interested in comics, decided to have a little look-see.

The content is basically sound, and I personally have no reservations whatsoever about having individuals with mainstream literary credentials included in such articles. Having said that, I have some reservations about the exact content added. I am not myself sure, for instance, that the phrase "not a recognizably Jewish story" really adds much, because, honestly, I'm not sure that anyone ever said it was necessarily a "Jewish story," but maybe just a story about American Jews of a particular era, which isn't quite the same thing. A lot of the other content added also seems to deal primarily if not exclusively with the idea of Jewishness as well, and the same reservations more or less apply there - that they seem to be criticizing the story on its apparent lack of understanding of Judaism. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think maybe a lot of the possibly real people Eisner used as the basis for his characters might have been comparatively "devoid of Jewish learning or insight," and on that basis the material might accuraately represent them, even if Klingenstein finds it a disappointment.

The idea that Hersh unrealistically struggles with basic Jewish teaching does seem to me to be potentially the most encyclopedic material included, because it is talking about the story itself as a story, rather than as a story from the Jewish perspective. I might revise the paragraph to start with that material, and then maybe edit down the other material to maybe saying something to the effect that the characters are presented as being what a possibly Jewish scholar? said are "devoid of Jewish learning and insight," with perhaps a few examples. But, again, the story is allegedly more or less autobiographical, and it could well be that the real people used as bases for the characters might not have been particularly well informed Jews themselves for all I know. Just a few ideas, anyway. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'll try rearranging the paragraph along those lines.

As to the last point you made, I think that'd be fair to apply to the other characters in the book, but Hersh is depicted as particularly pious, and I think the criticism might come from that—that someone who was that religious wouldn't have struggled with such an (allegedly) elementary point. "Cookalein" is an autobiographical story, but "A Contract with God" is autobiographical only in the base situation, where both Hersh and Eisner lost their teenaged daughters. I think the idea is that Eisner channeled his feelings through Hersh, but the character of Hersh himself was not actually based on Eisner (who was born in the US, and, I get the feeling, was not devoutly Jewish(?) ). Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about Eisner's religious life - I think the editors at the Comics project probably know more. I know he dealt with other Jewish issues in his other late work, but it could be possible that he might not have been particularly religiously Jewish. Alternately, it might be that the New Yorkers he grew up around might not have been, and I personally think that the latter might be the more likely. For all I know, this particular episode might be based on one or more real situation Eisner knew of as a child, which he in some way "edited down" to the story. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Right. Well, I guess this is why I was asking for help—I know little about the religious life, and much less about the religious lives of American Jews, so I wasn't confident if I was summing up the criticism adequately, or if I was giving it undue weight. I'll post something at WikiProject Comics. It looks like you've already posted there. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've rewritten refocused it, cutting it down to roughly half the length it was. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Schumacher, gives a lot of information about Eisner's relationship with Judaism. Neither he nor his parents seem to have been particularly religious. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Tellement truc unusité

Je recherche une liscense pour mes photos. Mes la photo en particulier est une photo de moi avec la lumière venant du soleil.Ou l"on peux voir une main de lumière me toucher le front. Puis je tombe sur cette pages mettant en lumière Le livres Contrat avec Dieu...... Bref sa m"étonne plus mais je devais marqué ce monent Ednozel (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

First "modern" graphic novel

I'd like to improve some misleading descriptions in the Reception and legacy section. Namely, the first sentence: "A Contract with God has frequently, though erroneously, been cited as the first graphic novel;...." The statement is both right and wrong, however the "wrong" part is missing.

For example, W.W. Norton explains pretty clearly that it was, in fact, considered the first "modern graphic novel," which it contrasts with the then traditional "comic-book format." This fact is also noted in Paul Levitz's Will Eisner: Champion of the Graphic Novel (Abrams, 2015), where Levitz notes that Eisner's obituary in the NY Times described him as having "created ... the first modern graphic novel." So the key word missing is "modern," which makes it somewhat erroneous to say that the book was "erroneously" cited as being the "first graphic novel." Expanding that aspect would be useful. Thoughts? --Light show (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, this is how Schumacher, who is cited throughout the article, explains the difference: Template:Quote

• Template:Ec I have to wonder what "modern" is supposed to mean in this context. There were books that were appearing in the few years before Contract that were advertised as graphic novels: aside from The First Kingdom in 1974, in 1976 there were Bloodstar, Chandler: Red Tide, and George Metzger's Beyond Time and Again. How "modern" is "modern"? Further muddying the waters is the fact the definition of the term "graphic novel" has never been set in stone, and in the 21st is getting closer and closer to be a synonym for "comics" in general. What does "modern graphic novel" mean in that context? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of "modern" has always been disputed, whether for modern art, architecture or furniture. All we can do is cite reliable sources if they use the term in the context of a subject. And we can cite other sources who dispute the use of the term in that context. It doesn't need to be set in stone to cite it. Comic writer and historian Michael Gilbert agreed that the issue "was one of definition." He noted that the older Classics Illustrated comic books could be described as being graphic novels. That's why describing the different physical format of Contract as more of a paperback book would be helpful.--Light show (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Is that what the sources say they mean by "modern", or your interpretation of it? There are certainly plenty of precursors—a striking parallel being Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book (1959, a four-story paperback aimed at mature audiences by a contemporary and friend of Eisner's). I think we'd need to demonstrate that there is a general consensus that Contract is "the first modern graphic novel", and I doubt there is such a consensus. We also have to be careful what comics "scholarship" has to say, as comics "scholars" are notoriously sloppy researchers (witness how many sources continue to claim Eisner first used the term "graphic novel", or that claim comics is an American artform). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you're creating a new guideline, namely that a reliable source can only be cited after there is consensus. And I wasn't sure about your question. I didn't interpret anything; the Gilbert comment came from Schumacher. In any case, if source A says calls something "modern," "first" or a "graphic novel," and source B says it isn't, that's all fine, so long as their opinions are attributed. --Light show (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

When reliacle sources disagree about a fact it is an editorial decision how to describe it in the article, whether to privilege one view as a consensus view or take a neutral stance. I think in this case I would recommend something along the lines of "often considered the first modern graphic novel", to accomodate the fact that some disagree on technical arguments with the fact that it clearly is the first well known and broadly popular graphic novel, and that it is very commonly described as such.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Light show: "Is sounds like you're creating a new guideline, namely that a reliable source can only be cited after there is consensus."—no, you misread my comment. "Consensus" refers to "scholarly consensus".

"if source A says calls something "modern," "first" or a "graphic novel," and source B says it isn't, that's all fine, so long as their opinions are attributed."—so we should create an exhaustive list of people's opinions and their refutations, as long as we can cite them? How does that serve the reader?

·maunus: The article already states that it is the book that popularized the term and describes the background behind the term. Why is that not sufficient? Is the article unclear on the book's place in comics history without loading up the article with disputed peacocky statements? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I dont think clearly stating the significance of a topic is peacockery. Currently the lead says that "although the term graphic novel did not originate with will eisner the book is credited with popularizing its use". I would call that an understatement of the fact that it is widely considered the world's first significant graphic novel. It would not be peacockery to state "the work is often describe as the first graphic novel", and then put into a footnote that the term did not originate with Eisner and that two relatively obscure works had previously used it. We discussed this in the GA review and I still think you are letting your own distaste for the work overshadow the way that the general public views it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"the world's first significant graphic novel"—uh, no, maunus. Surely you are aware that book-length comics were well established in Europe and Japan decades before Anglo comics managed to get in on the game.

"two relatively obscure works had previously used it"—two? You might want to check your facts. At least one in 1974 and three in 1976 (just off the top of my head) use the term "graphic novel". Plenty of others had the form without using the term, such as Blackmark in 1971. Contract was an important watermark, but it's hard to argue it was the "first" anything, as Tenebrae agreed at the GAN.

"letting your own distaste for the work": I think it's Eisner's best graphic novel and put in the time bringing it up to FA. This is "distaste"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I may have misremembered when I seemed to have a memory of you saying something to the effect that it wasnt particularly good or important and that mostly the reason it has come to be known as the worlds first significant graphic novel (I dont think any of the previous ones, regardless of their number are remotely comparable in significance) was that Eisner used it as a marketing ploy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Also the fact that "it is hard to argue that Contract was the first anything" is not relevant, what is relevant is that many people consider it to be so, and know it as such. And note that noone is argueing that the article should say that it IS the first graphic novel, but only that it is often considered to be so. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"what is relevant is that many people consider it to be so": which is dealt with in the article, so what's the problem? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey states the facts accurately and succinctly. I would also note that it's a very serious thing when any editor tries to make major, substantive changes to a Featured Article, which has been peer-reviewed throughly and considered among Wikipedia's best. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

FAs are not immune to editing, and the FA status is not a valid reason to stifle discussion on how to improve the article. I am not going to press the point further, but simply wanted to acknowledge that I think Light show has a valid point that merits discussion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I in no way said "immune" or "immutable", and the fact we're discussing it shows no one's stifling discussion. And do you really not believe that major, substantive changes to an FA is not something that should be undertaken with great seriousness? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Who is being less than serious here?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand: If we all agree with my reiteration that we should take this seriously, then what's the issue? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Simply that you seemed to use an appeal to seriousness to imply that the discussion proposed by Light show was somehow not sufficiently serious to merit attention. If that is not what you meant then there is no problem.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No one suggested FAs were untouchable, so let's put an end to this tangent. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:OdMost of the first paragraph of the Legacy section could be considered a synthesis conclusion, stating that reliable sourced opinions are "erroneous," and trying to prove it with the sentences following. And even without the OR, why any Legacy section would start with proving cited descriptions are not true is beyond me. --Light show (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no SYNTH whatsoever. It's a verifiable fact that A Contract with God is not the first graphic novel. That said, we may not need the whole litany of history that follows the statement, since the statement is cited and anyone can go to Graphic novel to learn more of the form's history. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "litany": there's the first use of the term, the earliest known use of the term on a work, and a well-known early instance of the form. I'd consider that minimum context. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ec : Now you've gone off the deep end. Demonstrate the synthesis from this quote from the actual cited source:

"It has become common in histories of the medium to cite Will Eisner and his 1978 A Contract with God as the first graphic novel and the first use of that term to promote an extended-length comics narrative."

...

However, as comics studies has come into its own as a discipline, scholars have taken pains to document that Contract was not the first graphic novel. ... [long list of precursors] ... In 1978, alongside Contract, there were at least five other long-form comics that, by virtue of content and format, had a better claim to the designation graphic novel

Now do your magic and show how what's in the article is WP:SYNTH or WP:OR! Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you're juggling the time element. The Legacy now states, "A Contract with God has frequently, though erroneously, been cited as the first graphic novel." To be accurate, it could state, "At the time of its publication, 'A Contract with God was widely considered to be the first 'modern graphic novel.' However, as comics studies came into its own as a discipline, scholars have documented that Contract was not the first 'graphic novel,' although various sources (Norton, NYT, etc.) still consider it the first 'modern' graphic novel." I would follow that with the reasons and who gave them, as noted above by Schumacher and others. As primary editor, your're no doubt aware that even Duncan & Smith, the two most used sources in the article, wrote a number of details that would expand on the subject:

Template:Quote

Duncan goes into much more detail, as you know, about what made his graphic novel distinct from previous ones. --Light show (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"At the time of its publication, 'A Contract with God was widely considered to be the first "modern graphic novel.": and your citation for that is? Find me a source from 1978–79 that considered Contract "the first graphic novel". My understanding is that it gained that status retroactively, after the "graphic novel boom" of the mid-1980s and the publication of Comics and Sequential Art. The quote you cite above gives no date earlier than 1998 that Contract may have been considered the "first". That the book is often considered the first is actually handled in the article, by the way, as you're aware. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It states in the Background section, "He marketed it as a 'graphic novel'—a term which had been in use since the 1960s, but was little known until Eisner popularized it with Contract.[31]" That implies that at the time, "it was considered to be the first." In any case, the first sentence in the Legacy section is based on today's knowledge, so the unstated time gap in the sentence could be explained to be clear. Was it therefore "erroneous" at the time to think the book was the first? Apparently not.--Light show (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite the limb you've gone out on! Nothing in that statement coems anywhere in the vicinity of anything resembling "it was considered to be the first". You've WP:ORed yourself out of credibility, I'm afraid. Good luck building a consensus on that fantasy. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Contract with God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201235623/http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051204/news_lz1v04trilogy.html to http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051204/news_lz1v04trilogy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)