BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Comic Books >

Time Magazine's OTHER "Best" List - Top Ten Graphic Novels

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
miss wonderstarr
17:11 / 26.10.05
So, newspaper strips are to comics what comics are to graphic novels, part of the same continum and lineage...



Fair point, though as I tried to say in a post above, it seems more of a stretch to include a collected comic strip (the newspaper funnies) as a graphic novel than it does a collected monthly comic book.

On the other hand, I did suggest Little Nemo and Krazy Kat could be included, so what the hey.
 
 
sleazenation
17:22 / 26.10.05
here's no 'The Enigma' on this list. No Morrison, Millidge, Milligan, or Ellis at all... um... nothing from Japan AT ALL, or in fact, much if any of the world outside the States.

Um - Watchmen was created by two Brits which, I'd argue, makes it a British graphic novel. Similarly, Chester Brown is Canadian, but have a feeling that his stuff is now mainly published through a Canadian publisher... But interesting point on the Japanese comics - what would you pick if you could only have one on the list?
 
 
Mark Parsons
17:39 / 26.10.05
I like Alan Moore's work as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't suggest that his work is so far ahead of his contemporaries that his work alone should comprise the largest chunk of any top ten...

I was suggesting that V or From Hell (either one) Replace Watchmen on the list.

I think one or two of you may be taking your objections to the very idea of lists a little to far. In the states, interest is comics is increasing, so this list is a primer for folks who have probably heard of/been intrigued by/read Persepolis, Blankets, et alia and want to check out more.

As I wrote before, I think that throwing superhero comics on a list with Berlin and Ed is somewhat problematical, like placing LOTR alongside Broken Flowers. Why not split such lists into drama, comedy, capes/fantasy/SF?
 
 
Mark Parsons
17:41 / 26.10.05


Naussica?

I'm waiting to read Buddha.
 
 
sleazenation
18:15 / 26.10.05
This is probably one of those YMMV things but I think Watchmen is always going to beat Moore's other works onto such lists because it has had such an impact on a wide range of popular culture as an original story in the comic form. By comparison From Hell is, somewhat unfairly, doomed to be viewed as a less original work because of its historical basis. Meanwhile, V for Vendetta remains fundermentally flawed from a nuclear war perspective... the terrorist-a- hero element is also going to cut against it in such lists...
 
 
miss wonderstarr
18:29 / 26.10.05
Um - Watchmen was created by two Brits which, I'd argue, makes it a British graphic novel.

On balance though, it is set in America and published by an American giant. I think all the main characters are American. Just out of interest, could it be argued that Watchmen has a British "feel" or "tone" in any way? Being English myself, I might not pick up on such a thing in a superhero comic.

I think the broader point is true that I have big problems with lists.
 
 
Sniv
18:58 / 26.10.05
Sleaze - just a couple of things I have to comment on since my last post [dude, what else do you guys do? I was on my way home and bam! loads of posts] brought up so many new lines of discussion.

Firstly, I have to clarify I am by no means exlusively spadex. Sure, I read a lot of superhero books, but I also love others. Unfortunately, being not made of money, I don't have the opportunity to read many other genres, but I consistently love Oni press' output, especially Queen and Country, Hopeless Savages and Kissing Chaos, all awesome comics. I also love Brian Bendis' old stuff, especially Jinx, which I re-read this weekend and loved (again). Just had to set the record straight there, I do read widely.

I was just noting in my last post that perhaps the list was slightly tainted by spandex-snobbery, but if you think about it, the intended of the audience of the list probably wouldn't dig superheroes anyway, so it's no great loss.

Spinning from this idea though: how is 'superhero' a genre? Superhero books may feature the spandex-clad, but often come in many wildly diffent shapes. Condsider Daredevil, which is basically Bendis' crime stuff (Goldfish, Jinx, Sam and Twitch...), in the Daredevil 'universe'. Books like Legion of Superheroes, Fantastic Four et al are 'classic' sci-fi, sometimes mixed with soap opera elements (especially FF). Batman alone has crossed so many genre-boundaries, from pulpy noir to straight horror to Godfather-riffing gangster stylings. Just look at Seven Soldiers for a case-in point, a lesson in superhero genre flexibility.

That's what makes me think of superhero-snobbery (whether conscious or not). There's enough variety in superhero comics to keep you going forever, if you can look past the image of superheroes as kids-stuff, or even as men in tights. I often think of them as being simply symbols that can be used to tell the story around - iconic, powerful characters, both simple and complex, depending on the point-of-view of the reader, and the skill of the writer.

Each has it's own unique properties, and allow for for simply awesome stories, regardless of the corny connotations. It's probably nowhere near as simple as I think to say something like that, I've probably said it wrong somehow, and it'll be picked apart by the time I next get to the computer, but never mind, just my twopenneth.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
19:07 / 26.10.05
I agree with a lot of what you say about the potential of superheroes, but I don't see a problem with identifying them as a genre: what else would you call it? Superhero comics are defined, if nothing else, by visual icons (certain kind of costume), and that's one key way you'd identify a genre in cinema.

Spinning from this idea though: how is 'superhero' a genre? Superhero books may feature the spandex-clad, but often come in many wildly diffent shapes. Condsider Daredevil, which is basically Bendis' crime stuff (Goldfish, Jinx, Sam and Twitch...), in the Daredevil 'universe'. Books like Legion of Superheroes, Fantastic Four et al are 'classic' sci-fi, sometimes mixed with soap opera elements (especially FF). Batman alone has crossed so many genre-boundaries, from pulpy noir to straight horror to Godfather-riffing gangster stylings. Just look at Seven Soldiers for a case-in point, a lesson in superhero genre flexibility.

Well, Westerns can also be musicals (Roy Rogers), comedy (Blazing Saddles) and SF (Battle Beyond the Stars, Westworld, Serenity...Strontium Dog?). There are still aspects that make it at least partly a Western. True, superhero stories go through a lot of crossover, hybrid forms, but don't they also all have something in common?
 
 
Sniv
19:15 / 26.10.05
Kovacs - I agree with your point that superhero comics may constitute a genre by themselves, but I'd add the caveat that it's a wiiiiiide genre-scope =)

as for westerns, my g/f says constantly that she hates them, but she dug Serenity/Firefly for it's western elements rather than sci-fi. My point is that perhaps all you need is the right combination of genre elements for people to respond to.

My main issue with the list a la superheroes is that the two superhero books it does feature are very atypical for the 'genre' there's no representation at all of modern mainstream comics. What does this say about the modern mainstream comics and wider society?
 
 
miss wonderstarr
19:23 / 26.10.05
I think the rationale within that list may be that the readers aren't going to be very familiar with comics, or more specifically with superhero comics; so if they're going to start from scratch, then to get over their preconceptions and lay some groundwork for what recent (decent) superhero comics are like, they may as well start with the Big Two of the mid-80s.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:22 / 26.10.05
Watchmen was created by two Brits which, I'd argue, makes it a British graphic novel.

A point that was sadly missed by the Daily Mail the other day when reporting on the list of the best novels ever, which also featured Watchmen. Being the champions of all things British, they were falling all over themselves to trumpet the fact that there were two Brits on the list (Orwell and CS Lewis), completely missing the fact that there were actually four.
 
 
This Sunday
01:33 / 27.10.05
'Watchmen' is American in the sense that it was published origingally in the States, created for the US market, and there's a strong case to be made for it being a touch-up - a drastic and intelligent overhaul, but still - of a bunch of pre-existing American supertightsfolks.
This 'Seven Soldiers' stuff coming out right now, from 'Klarion' to 'The Guardian' is all American material, so far as I'm concerned. Because it's corporate. In all the cases, it's a company-has-a-hand issue that swings it to the company's geographical region, for me.
Chester Brown - y'know, I missed that, but then, I didn't mean that it was *ALL AMERICAN* [cue: fireworks, flags, and Bush Sr. in a wide-lapel disco-dancin' leisure get-up), but just interestingly American-skewed. When there's no real reason to do that.
And, y'know, I don't think I'd ever willingly write one of these up and put it somewhere substantial, because I'd end up putting things like 'Please Save My Earth' and the Eastman/Laird old-school 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' on there. And some William Blake.
And that wouldn't do anybody any good at all, would it?
 
 
A
04:03 / 27.10.05
That list is definitely weighted towards highbrow comics that have been released over the last few years. The inclusion of Bone, Watchmen and Dark Knight seem a little tokenistic to me. I guess they had to throw in a couple of superhero titles and something that kids can read.

What really gets me, however, is that, according to the list, there was not a single comic created previous to 1986 (that is- in over half a century) that was as good as David Boring. Yikes. It kinda reminds me of one of those lists where Kid A is apparently the Greatest Album Of All Time, and Sinatra, Nina Simone, Muddy Waters and Count Basie don't even crack the top 100.

(Clowes really is the Radiohead of comics, isn't he?)
 
 
Mark Parsons
04:09 / 27.10.05
Spinning from this idea though: how is 'superhero' a genre?

People in costumes fight crime = a genre.

OK, that needs clarification, but really, the cape crowd are pop cultural mythic standards (secret ID, great power, great responsibility and so forth) and no matter what their tint/overlay is (crime, scifi, comedy), they tend to use the same set of lenses to reflect and refract story and theme, etc.

Slightly related angle: I agree with Ellis' contention that superhero comics are an entirely separate market from other comics. Most supe fans choose not to venture very far from it: they buy what they like.
 
 
lonely as a cloud...
06:45 / 27.10.05
Incidentally, furioso - Buddha is really great, if slightly expensive in those hardback editions - but they do look very cool lined up together
 
 
Hieronymus
07:12 / 27.10.05
Personally I find it to be a damn good list. And definitely the kind of books I'd recommend (or should be recommending) to friends who don't usually read comics.

TIME done good.
 
 
sleazenation
07:25 / 27.10.05
The inclusion of Bone, Watchmen and Dark Knight seem a little tokenistic to me.

Yet those three titles comprizes just under a third of the list, which strikes me as more than tokenism.

What really gets me, however, is that, according to the list, there was not a single comic created previous to 1986 (that is- in over half a century) that was as good as David Boring. Yikes. It kinda reminds me of one of those lists where Kid A is apparently the Greatest Album Of All Time,

As I pointed out earlier, The graphic novel as a form has only really existed for about 30 years, with the bulk of graphic novels being published in the last 15 years - How many great graphic novels (And we are talking about graphic novels here) can you think of that were published between 1977 (the date most often cited as being the advent of graphic novels) and 1986? I can only think of three or perhaps four off the top of my head - A Contract With God, When the Wind Blows, Cerebus: High Society and maybe Luther Arkwright (the first volume of which came out in 82 and influenced both Gaiman and Moore)...

Simply put, there were more graphic novels published AFTER 1986 than there were before it, coupled with my other point, that the writer is going by the dates that the collection was first published rather than when the material contain therein first appeared and I don't think it is at all surprizing that the list is pretty much exclusively post-1986...


And for what it's worth I think OK Computer, not Kid A, will stand the test of time by being a popular album that was unlike much, if not anything, else available at the time of its release... but this is probably a topic more fitting for the music forum...
 
 
miss wonderstarr
16:36 / 27.10.05
If "graphic novel" is simply being taken by that list to mean "collection of weekly or monthly strips", then Krazy Kat has, arguably, as much right to be included as Jimmy Corrigan. Both are made up of self-contained episodes that gradually build into a larger sense of character.

And I was under the impression that Continental European comics had been published in single volumes since before 1977. Couldn't you include something like Lieutenant Blueberry: "Fort Navaho" (1963)?

Is it perhaps true that the graphic novel developed in the Anglo-American market from the late 1970s onward (with a breakthrough year in 1986) but that Europe embraced this form significantly earlier? I don't know much about Japanese comics, but perhaps there were manga "graphic novels" earlier in the 20th century too.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:14 / 27.10.05
And I was under the impression that Continental European comics had been published in single volumes since before 1977.

Are we including Asterix and Tintin? And if not, can anyone give me a good reason why not?
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
19:40 / 27.10.05
If "graphic novel" is simply being taken by that list to mean "collection of weekly or monthly strips", then Krazy Kat has, arguably, as much right to be included as Jimmy Corrigan. Both are made up of self-contained episodes that gradually build into a larger sense of character.

Character or story?

Because although JC was technically serialized publication-wise, it was written as a Novel. The difference between a Graphic Novel and a Collection lies, in my mind, in the intent of the creator. Cerebus Volume 1 is not a Graphic Novel. High Society is.

As far as Super-Hero being a Genre, boy is that a slippery slope. I can't talk about Kevin Analog on The Engine because he has Superpowers. I don't begrudge Ellis for his Message Board Editorial Stance in the least, I'm behind it. It's others' perception of the "Genre" of "Superheroes" that makes it necessary, and its the laziness of many creators that causes the creation of comic book stories that have no other thematic weight than tights and punching. Daredevil is a Crime Novel. New X-Men is Sci-Fi/Drama.

Calling Superhero a genre, and basically validating the laziness that caused/causes such classification, is like making Lawyer a genre, and throwing all of Turow and Grisham in there.

It's silly. Watchmen is a Superhero comic? The Incredibles is a Superhero movie? That's the over-riding thematic weight of these works? Their outfits and job?
 
 
PatrickMM
19:52 / 27.10.05
I've read seven of the books on the list, and with the exception of Watchmen, none of them would be in my personal top ten, even if you exclude 'serial graphic novels,' which is how I'd describe most Vertigo series and superhero works. I really enjoyed Berlin and Jimmy Corrigan, but I don't think they even come close to most of Moore or Morrison's work. I don't think there's any better creators of fiction working today, in any field, than the two of them, and the scale and emotion of their work goes beyond the good, but not great David Boring, and it astonishes me that Morrison's work hasn't gotten more cultural attention.

Should there have been more superhero stuff? I would say Miracleman, Flex Mentallo and Watchmen all deserve a place on the list, but that's all I would put there. I think what they're missing is Vertigo type stuff, books that aren't so self consciously distancing themselves from the popular perception of comic books, but are still intellectually challenging. This list is like the academy awards, rewarding the prestige films, whereas I'd like to see a list that rewards the cooler, indie-film books, the Eternal Sunshine of comics rather than the Finding Neverland.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:03 / 27.10.05
Thing is, stuff like Flex and Miracleman kind of require you to be into comics, especially superheroes, to start with (Flex much more so). While Watchmen does to an extent, it gets fleshed out on its own terms, and can pretty much stand alone. All the reader really needs to know about comics is what pretty much everyone in the west knows- superheroes dress funny and fight crime. Some of them aren't actually very nice people. Obviously there's a lot more there too, but for the story to work these are all that's required. (Actually, come to think of it, Miracleman probably falls in this category as well).

I've actually forgotten the reason that I feel this is an important distinction, but...
 
 
miss wonderstarr
20:07 / 27.10.05

Character or story?

Because although JC was technically serialized publication-wise, it was written as a Novel. The difference between a Graphic Novel and a Collection lies, in my mind, in the intent of the creator. Cerebus Volume 1 is not a Graphic Novel. High Society is.

I think that's a fair point, but it would exclude (as I suggested) "Palomar" as a collection of self-contained stories rather than a volume that was intended to contain one overarching "novel".


It's others' perception of the "Genre" of "Superheroes" that makes it necessary,

My impression (sorry if I'm wrong) is that it's others' perception of superheroes that makes you wary of it as a genre -- because you see superheroes as something with negative connotations. Your incredulous citing of Incredibles and Watchmen as superhero stories indicates that you think good work somehow shouldn't be classed as "superhero", as if something rich and complex should have some other name.


Daredevil is a Crime Novel. New X-Men is Sci-Fi/Drama.

Again, it's as though you're saying this is good, it can't be superheroes -- we'll have to call it something else. Ironi cally, crime and SF are also genres that others are prejudiced against; maybe they're just a bit higher on the scale than superheroes.

Daredevil has elements of crime, SF and drama. But to me, it has more in common with Batman than it does with CSI, Kojak, The Bill and The Maltese Falcon. I don't have a problem with classing Daredevil as primarily superhero, with tendencies towards a certain other genre (eg. Loeb's Daredevil:Yellow could even be classed as superhero-romance) because I don't see "superhero" as something we should try to get away from.


Calling Superhero a genre, and basically validating the laziness that caused/causes such classification, is like making Lawyer a genre, and throwing all of Turow and Grisham in there.

You're saying let's make "courtroom drama" a sub-genre, which it is. It's just not called Lawyer. That's like saying hey, what if we made up a genre called Cowboy, wouldn't that be ridiculous, and we'd put quality like Unforgiven in there alongside crappy Lone Ranger cartoons.

Well, it's not called Cowboy but yes, crappy Lone Ranger cartoons do belong in the same genre as quality like Unforgiven, and that's just how genres operate -- not through whether the material is good or bad but through other identifiable characteristics, like key iconography, setting, characters and themes.


It's silly. Watchmen is a Superhero comic? The Incredibles is a Superhero movie? That's the over-riding thematic weight of these works? Their outfits and job?

You could make the same argument about the Western though. Blazing Saddles is the same genre as The Searchers, just because it's set in a certain place at a certain time, with people in certain outfits with certain accessories? Well, yes. That's how you define a Western, with the proviso that Blazing Saddles is a comedy-western. You can draw distinctions through that kind of hybridity.

Again, you seem to be saying something isn't a superhero title if it's any good, or not identical to all other superhero titles.
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
20:49 / 27.10.05
My impression (sorry if I'm wrong) is that it's others' perception of superheroes that makes you wary of it as a genre -- because you see superheroes as something with negative connotations. Your incredulous citing of Incredibles and Watchmen as superhero stories indicates that you think good work somehow shouldn't be classed as "superhero", as if something rich and complex should have some other name.

I don't think it should be classified as Superhero because I think it's a bogus genre. I think the only reason that some people have started using Superhero as a genre is because there have been comics produced that do not have anything going on in them except the person's job and clothing. I think a "genre" should describe a work's thematic intent. I don't consider being a Superhero one of those things.

Again, it's as though you're saying this is good, it can't be superheroes -- we'll have to call it something else. Ironi cally, crime and SF are also genres that others are prejudiced against; maybe they're just a bit higher on the scale than superheroes.

Again, it's not about the prejudice against the genre, it's that it should not be a genre to begin with. "Good" "superhero" comics have more going with them than the fact that people are punching each other.

Daredevil has elements of crime, SF and drama. But to me, it has more in common with Batman than it does with CSI, Kojak, The Bill and The Maltese Falcon. I don't have a problem with classing Daredevil as primarily superhero, with tendencies towards a certain other genre (eg. Loeb's Daredevil:Yellow could even be classed as superhero-romance) because I don't see "superhero" as something we should try to get away from.

I don't think it's something that should be gotten away from, it's something that should be completely eliminated as a distinguishing marketing characteristic. Obviously, I'm not saying that that we should get away from telling compelling and complex stories involving people with powers. I think they represent an enormous opportunity to explore any number of themes. I just don't think that opportunity is itself a theme.

You're saying let's make "courtroom drama" a sub-genre, which it is. It's just not called Lawyer. That's like saying hey, what if we made up a genre called Cowboy, wouldn't that be ridiculous, and we'd put quality like Unforgiven in there alongside crappy Lone Ranger cartoons.

Well, it's not called Cowboy but yes, crappy Lone Ranger cartoons do belong in the same genre as quality like Unforgiven, and that's just how genres operate -- not through whether the material is good or bad but through other identifiable characteristics, like key iconography, setting, characters and themes.

Hm. That is a good point. I think what you might think of me qualifying something as "good" is really just me pointing out that something is themetically about something other than the people's clothing and occupations. I think, and this is just a personal feeling, that Western is a pretty weak "Genre" classification.

You could make the same argument about the Western though. Blazing Saddles is the same genre as The Searchers, just because it's set in a certain place at a certain time, with people in certain outfits with certain accessories? Well, yes. That's how you define a Western, with the proviso that Blazing Saddles is a comedy-western. You can draw distinctions through that kind of hybridity.

Again, you seem to be saying something isn't a superhero title if it's any good, or not identical to all other superhero titles.

I hope I've clarified myself. As far as Westerns go, I guess I could a little further about why it's kind of a bullshit genre, but then I might start questioning Sci-Fi, Fantasy, all that, so that's another slippery slope. I guess I just go by what belongs on the back of a book. All that Sub-Genreing is perfectly viable, but seems a bit extravagant to me. Why would you want to classify something as "Coyboy-Romance"? What if there's an epilogue where the character reminisces about the adventures he had while eating in a diner in his twilight years?

A lot of this probably comes from a few passages in King's The Dark Tower that basically point out how silly the whole concept of genre is. What would you call those books? Fantasy-Western-Sci-Fi-Non-Fiction? The overarching thematic intent of that work is Dramatic. It's not about the Expansion Of The Human Spirit (Western) or The Pros And Cons Of Human Advancement (Sci-Fi). You could potentially make the same type of summary for Superhero Comics, I guess, and I suppose that torpedoes my whole argument. But I stand behind it. I think it's a flimsy genre classification. You can tell a sci-fi story without robots. You can tell a western story without cowboys. The only thing that qualifies the Superhero "genre" is their outfits and that they have powers. That, to me, is flimsy.

It's not about perception or prejudice, I suppose. It's just a question of semantics to me.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
21:13 / 27.10.05
I think, and this is just a personal feeling, that Western is a pretty weak "Genre" classification.

This is quite a useful comment in clarifying your position. With all goodwill to you, it shows me I can't really agree with your views on genre, because to me the category "Western" isn't problematic. If you think "Western" is a weak classification, then yes I see why you'd have issues with "Superhero", and I think we're too far apart to agree on that.

I don't mean this in a bad way at all; it's useful to know that there's not much chance of us convincing each other, and where we stand, and we can still explore the distance between our positions I think.



I hope I've clarified myself. As far as Westerns go, I guess I could a little further about why it's kind of a bullshit genre, but then I might start questioning Sci-Fi, Fantasy, all that, so that's another slippery slope.

Sure... it's seeming that you are anti-genre in itself, anti-categorisation.

Why would you want to classify something as "Coyboy-Romance"? What if there's an epilogue where the character reminisces about the adventures he had while eating in a diner in his twilight years?

Lol Coyboy Romance. Of course I know what you mean but it conjures ideas.


A lot of this probably comes from a few passages in King's The Dark Tower that basically point out how silly the whole concept of genre is. What would you call those books? Fantasy-Western-Sci-Fi-Non-Fiction? The overarching thematic intent of that work is Dramatic.

But isn't (almost?) all narrative fiction "dramatic"? If that's your category, wouldn't almost everything fit in it? Again, it seems you're against dividing up stories into categories at all.

And yes, to be fair to you, I would probably have to refer to The Dark Tower as Fantasy-Western-SF. I thought it was fiction though. And it is an unusual case in its hybridity.

It's not about the Expansion Of The Human Spirit (Western) or The Pros And Cons Of Human Advancement (Sci-Fi).

I don't think defining by themes, rather than visual iconography, actually helps so much. There are loads of Westerns that don't fit the theme "expansion of the human spirit". The most sensible approach if you do want to put things in genres is probably to categorise stories by themes, typical characters, period and place, and visual iconography.

I'm sure some working definition could be established for superhero stories, around the ideas that they're about human beings who fulfil mythic, godlike archetypes in their secret identities; that they're stories predominantly set in American cities of the 1930s onwards; that they feature a distinctive style of costume and are based around a distinctive type of "pseudo-scientific" explanation of mythical, uncanny, "magical" phenomena.

You can tell a sci-fi story without robots. You can tell a western story without cowboys. The only thing that qualifies the Superhero "genre" is their outfits and that they have powers. That, to me, is flimsy.

I think there's a lot of interesting debate to be had (and there's been tons about film genres, over decades) about what constitutes a genre. I don't think it comes down to absolute distinctions and wrong/right. But overall in this post I am suggesting that genres are identified by more superficial stuff like typical props and costumes, and deeper stuff like typical themes and issues.
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
21:39 / 27.10.05
Yes.

That's pretty much all I can say to your well-reasoned and thought out post. We are just coming at this from different angles.

Most of this is probably because my semantic stance is inevitably a result of prejudicial factors. I wouldn't give a shit about genres if they didn't lead inevitably to a work's ghettoization. So, when it comes down to it, you're right and I'm wrong. (And I too mean this with all goodwill.)

But I do think that moreso than established genres, the idea of the Superhero Genre is so much more problematic, as it serves to pigeonhole the already pigeonholed-to-death.

Another thing that concerns me is accessibility. And I think I've gotten into this when discussing trade dress, but this whole idea of Genre ties in as well. Put in a $14 Paperback-Sized edition, the Bendis/Maleev run on Daredevil would fit right in on the shelves in the Crime/Mystery section at Borders. The fact that in this case a genre classification is keeping it from a potential reader tells me that it is, in fact, a faulty genre classification.

It's when these sort of whittlings down into specific genres start burying things that I start to have a problem. But I am looking at this from a marketing point of view, as opposed to a critical point of view. It's probably quite helpful for an English Doctoral Candidate to lobby for the classification of a Superhero Genre so that he or she can focus exclusively on those types of related works, and the similarities they have between them. (Which seems closer to where you're coming from.) From a Marketing Standpoint, the idea of a Superhero Genre is like an atomic bomb of awfulness, instantly cutting you off from pretty much anyone over the age of 35 (unless they themselves make and/or distribute Superhero Comics).

Which is sort of different from my previous argument, but that seems to be what it's morphed into, since you so effectively pulled the carpet out from under me when it came to critical classification.

Nice one!
 
 
eddie thirteen
02:04 / 28.10.05
I guess Time gets points for effort. I don't think anyone would have complained if they hadn't done the list, after all. But when you're talking top ten, I don't think there's much room for surprises; it would certainly be controversial to include, say, Stephen King's The Stand on a list of the ten best novels of all time, but it would also be pretty ridiculous. The top ten novels of all time would categorically almost have to be such a dreary recitation of familiar titles that it wouldn't warrant so much as a glance -- which is why I imagine Time chose to rate the 100 best novels instead. Similarly, a top ten graphic novels that most people could agree upon would probably be boringly familiar to anyone with any pre-existing interest in the medium. The absences in this list are quite glaring, but on the other hand, it is more *interesting* to include Ed the Happy Clown than it would be to include, say, Maus or A Contract with God, which are both (I'm sorry) worthier of being there, but which everyone would expect to be there. If the intent of the list is to create debate, well done; if it's to generate a canonical listing most comics readers would agree with, then I'd have to say, not so much.

That said, I do think it's too bad that not only does the list leave a lot to be desired, but that the books listed don't even necessarily represent the best of their creators, to say nothing of the best of the medium. I agree that From Hell is by any sane definition a better book than Watchmen, but I'd go further and say that any of Frank Miller's first few Sin City novels are better than Dark Knight, and that David Boring is pretty minor work from Dan Clowes -- Ghost World, The Death Ray and Ice Haven are all better stuff, to my way of thinking.
 
 
matthew.
02:56 / 28.10.05
Is Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth really worth it? I like most comics, including the capes and the esoteric, so does everybody else think this is good? (And a question, is it a McSweeney's book? For some reason I thought it was)

No Manga, huh? Well, my only suggestion for best graphic novel of manga is Ghost in the Shell, but I haven't read a LOT of manga....

I fucking love Bone. Good on you, Time. It's funny, it's charming, it's heart-warming, it's bad-ass and it has an Ourobouros in it. What more could you want? (Maybe some capes? Or a utility belt) *grins slightly, elbows the debating posters*

I know a lot of people disliked the last third of Bone because it really jettisoned the humour and pumped up the Tolkien/generic fantasy, but I loved it. Does anybody agree or disagree?
 
 
This Sunday
03:32 / 28.10.05
I don't know that I agree that good superhero works have to have something more than just folks in tights punching each other. I still vastly prefer Ellis' version of 'The Authority' with its "We're here to hit you" mentality and pompous impetus of explosions and bright lights, to any version of the book/team since, precisely because it wasn't concerned with being a big political wish-fulfillment satirical commentary garden of the spiritual Jennies who all need to get laid and lets explain why Jack and Angie are having sex in a way that isn't just because, well, they're human beings who enjoy sex, sometimes with each other, even.
It was just folks in fancy clothes doing violent things and then watching the pretty special effects of the world, basking in the afterglow of self-justification. Pastoral violence.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
07:34 / 28.10.05
From a Marketing Standpoint, the idea of a Superhero Genre is like an atomic bomb of awfulness, instantly cutting you off from pretty much anyone over the age of 35 (unless they themselves make and/or distribute Superhero Comics).


I see where you're coming from with this. Good discussion.

In fact, of course though I say I like "superhero" stories, I don't like every tights-and-capes comic just because it has tights and capes. Most of the monthly superhero titles leave me very cold.

On the other hand, I liked the film Unbreakable because I felt it was a superhero story in terms of being about a human being dealing with uncanny, semi-godlike powers, which is maybe the key superhero theme I enjoy reading about over and over again. The iconography is nice dressing, but it's not necessary and it isn't perhaps the most important factor (though it is the most obvious and superficial one) in identifying a superhero comic.
 
 
sleazenation
07:59 / 28.10.05
Is Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth really worth it? I like most comics, including the capes and the esoteric, so does everybody else think this is good? (And a question, is it a McSweeney's book? For some reason I thought it was)

Yes, it's worth it. It might not be your cup of tea yet, but the quality of the design work bleeds of every page. And while an extract from Jimmy Corrigan appeared in the MCSweeny's book that Chris Ware edited, it is infact its own beast,
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply