The Comics Journal's Top 100 comics.
Martin Wisse
From their press release, as posted by Dean Haspiel on Comix-L:
THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
As selected by the editorial board of
THE COMICS JOURNAL
Fantagraphics Books is proud to present a very special issue of The
Comics Journal. For those unfamiliar, The Comics Journal has been the
most respected source for literary criticism of the comic book and
comic strip medium for 23 years, since its founding by Fantagraphics
Books President Gary Groth in 1976. This "Top 100" list - inspired in
part by similar end-of-the-century lists prepared for film and
literature - is an effort to raise awareness of the artform of comics
and spark a national dialogue to ensure that the great works in comics
are not lost to history. It includes only English-language works
published this century - the magazine's primary realm of interest -
be they newspaper strips, comic books, graphic novels, editorial
cartoons, or even caricatures.
"Very few art forms have as polluted a sense of history as comics,"
writes Comics Journal Executive Editor Tom Spurgeon in his
introduction to the feature. "When the past is lauded, it is for its
contribution to the present-day project or icon rather than the works
themselves. Moreover, the typical way of accessing the art form is
through items of complete disposability: the daily newspaper, or the
monthly serial comic book_ This list is a call for an uncompromising
re-examination of the comics medium in terms of its best works.
"We also hope that this list will foster a larger process, whereby art
is consistently and thoroughly examined and re-examined_ for as long
as there are works to consider," added Spurgeon.
This special issue of the Journal also includes lists from top
cartoonists such as R. Crumb and Jules Feiffer assessing their
favorite comics of the century. Special features include lists from
regular Journal columnists on their particular areas of interest:
mainstream comic books, newspaper comic strips and European translation
projects are all covered.
THE COMICS JOURNAL's "TOP 100 COMICS of the CENTURY"
#210 ; Street date: March 24, 1999 ; $7.95; $10.95 in Canada ; 152
pages ; UPC: 0 74470 74114 5 ; Available at comic book specialty
stores everywhere and selected newsstands
Featuring an original cover by Seth, creator of It's a Good Life if
You Don't Weaken and Palookaville (Drawn & Quarterly Publications)
The Comics Journal's Top 100 Comics of the Century
1) Krazy Kat by George Herriman
2) Peanuts by Charles Schulz
3) Pogo by Walt Kelly
4) Maus by Art Spiegelman
5) Little Nemo in Slumberland by Winsor McCay
6) Feiffer by Jules Feiffer
7) Donald Duck by Carl Barks
8) Mad by Harvey Kurtzman & various
9) Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary by Justin Greene
10) The Weirdo stories of R. Crumb
11) Thimble Theatre by E.C. Segar
12) EC's "New Trend" war comics by Harvey Kurtzman & various
13) Wigwam Bam by Jaime Hernandez
14) Blood of Palomar by Gilbert Hernandez
15) The Spirit by Will Eisner
16) RAW, edited by Art Spiegelman & Francoise Mouly
17) The ACME Novelty Library by Chris Ware
18) Polly & Her Pals by Cliff Sterret
19) The sketchbooks of R. Crumb
20) Uncle Scrooge by Carl Barks
21) The New Yorker cartoons of Peter Arno
22) The Death of Speedy Ortíz by Jaime Hernandez
23) Terry and the Pirates by Milton Caniff
24) Flies on the Ceiling by Jaime Hernandez
25) Wash Tubbs by Roy Crane
26) The Jungle Book by Harvey Kurtzman
27) Palestine by Joe Sacco
28) The "Mishkin" saga by Kim Deitch
29) Gasoline Alley by Frank King
30) Fantastic Four by Jack Kirby & Stan Lee
31) Poison River by Gilbert Hernandez
32) Plastic Man by Jack Cole
33) Dick Tracy by Chester Gould
34) The theatrical caricatures of Al Hirschfeld
35) The Amazing Spider-Man by Steve Ditko & Stan Lee
36) Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson
37) Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau
38) The autobiographical comics from Yummy Fur by Chester Brown
39) The editorial cartoons of Pat Oliphant
40) The Kinder-Kids by Lyonel Feininger
41) From Hell by Alan Moore & Eddie Campbell
42) Ghost World by Daniel Clowes
43) Amphigorey by Edward Gorey
44) Idiots Abroad by Gilbert Shelton & Paul Mavrides
45) Paul Auster's City of Glass by Paul Karasik & David Mazzacchelli
46) Cages by Dave McKean
47) The "Buddy Bradley" saga by Peter Bagge
48) The cartoons of James Thurber
49) Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud
50) Tantrum by Jules Feiffer
51) The "Alec" stories of Eddie Campbell
52) It's a Good Life if You Don't Weaken by Seth
53) The editorial cartoons of Herblock
54) EC's "New Trend" horror comics by Al Feldstein & various
55) The "Frank" stories by Jim Woodring
56) Julius Knipl, Real Estate Photographer by Ben Katchor
57) A Contract with God by Will Eisner
58) The New Yorker cartoons of Charles Addams
59) Little Lulu by John Stanley
60) Alley Oop by V.T. Hamlin
61) American Splendor #1-10 by Harvey Pekar with various
62) Little Orphan Annie by Harold Gray
63) Hey Look! by Harvey Kurtzman
64) Goodman Beaver by Harvey Kurtzman & Bill Elder
65) Bringing Up Father by George McManus
66) Zippy the Pinhead by Bill Griffith
67) The Passport by Saul Steinberg
68) Barnaby by Crockett Johnson
69) God's Man by Lynd Ward
70) Jimbo by Gary Panter
71) The Book of Jim by Jim Woodring
72) The short stories in Rubber Blanket by David Mazzucchelli
73) The Cartoon History of the Universe by Larry Gonick
74) Ernie Pook's Comeek by Lynda Barry
75) Black Hole by Charles Burns
76) "Master Race" by Bernie Krigstein & Al Feldstein
77) Li'l Abner by Al Capp
78) Sugar and Spike by Sheldon Mayer
79) Captain Marvel by C.C. Beck
80) Zap by Crumb & various
81) The "Lily" Stories by Debbie Drechsler
82) "Caricature" by Daniel Clowes
83) V for Vendetta by Alan Moore & David Lloyd
84) Why I Hate Saturn by Kyle Baker
85) The "Willie and Joe" cartoons of Bill Mauldin
86) Stuck Rubber Baby by Howard Cruse
87) The New Yorker cartoons of George Price
88) Jack Kirby's "Fourth World" comics
89) The autobiographical comics of Spain Rodriguez
90) Mr. Punch by Neil Gaiman & Dave McKean
91) Watchmen by Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons
92) "Pictopia" by Alan Moore & Don Simpson
93) Dennis the Menace by Hank Ketcham
94) Space Hawk by Basil Wolverton
95) Los Tejanos by Jack Jackson
96) Dirty Plotte by Julie Doucet
97) The Hannah Story by Carol Tyler
98) Barney Google by Billy De Beck
99) The Bungle Family by George Tuthill
100) Prince Valiant by Hal Foster
Comments?
Martin Wisse
Michael Long
Martin Wisse wrote in message <36f630b8...@news.demon.nl>...
>
>From their press release, as posted by Dean Haspiel on Comix-L:
>
> THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
>
MBLong
Jean-Marc Lofficier
Martin Wisse wrote:
> From their press release, as posted by Dean Haspiel on Comix-L:
>
> THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
>
> As selected by the editorial board of
> THE COMICS JOURNAL
>
> Comments?
>
> Martin Wisse
Maybe they should have made it clear that it's the top 100 *AMERICAN*
COMICS. (Or rather ENGLISH-LANGUAGE since some UK stuff is included).
JM
Alt_Real
Martin Wisse wrote in message <36f93d94...@news.demon.nl>...
>On 21 Mar 1999 00:16:39 GMT, wrh...@aol.com (WRH Bill) wrote:
>
>
>I'm also baffled by the absence of Cerebus on the list.
>
Wow, I can't believe I missed that when I looked at the
list! I can't believe the Comics Journal didn't include
Cerebus! Actually, Sim and the Journal do not exactly
have a loving relationship, but this shouldn't have entered
into the equation.
Ralph Mathieu
Alternate Reality Comics
Las Vegas
Ray Elliot
Editoral cartoons with strips (apples and oranges)????
Ray Elliot
WRH Bill
including both comic books and comic strips seems a little
apples-and-orangeish. Howver, based on a quick onceover these selections seem
reasonable, though with maybe too much emphasis on Fantagraphics publications
and the Hernandez brothers in particular. (On the other hand, I haven't read
that much Hernandez stuff, so I can't claim of my own knowledge that they're
not good enough to have five or six spaces on the list.)
I was pleased to see that Sheldon Mayer's SUGAR & SPIKE made the list. And I
agree that Scott McCloud belongs on it, though I'd nominate him for ZOT rather
than UNDERSTANDING COMICS.
Martin Wisse
> Two comments--No SUPERMAN or BATMAN????
Well, i can understand that. I don't think there have ever been
Superman or Batman stories good enough to be included in
a top 100 of comics, including the original creators work.
YMMV.
> Editoral cartoons with strips (apples and oranges)????
Why not? A case of having an inclusieve definition of comics,
rather then an exclusieve one. Editorial cartoons can be considered
strips, though once again, YMMV.
Martin Wisse
Martin Wisse
>I'm not a big fan of the Comics Journal these days, and a Top 100 list
>including both comic books and comic strips seems a little
>apples-and-orangeish. Howver, based on a quick onceover these selections seem
>reasonable, though with maybe too much emphasis on Fantagraphics publications
>and the Hernandez brothers in particular. (On the other hand, I haven't read
>that much Hernandez stuff, so I can't claim of my own knowledge that they're
>not good enough to have five or six spaces on the list.)
As i understood it, this list was a combination of top 100 lists from various
comics pundits, so if there's too much emphasis on FBI's titles, it may be
because they publish an greater amount of exceptional strips.
Then again, some of the things on the list strike me as a bit lightweight:
Buddy Bradley on #47? A Freak Brothers story at #44?
I'm also baffled by the absence of Cerebus on the list.
>I was pleased to see that Sheldon Mayer's SUGAR & SPIKE made the list. And I
>agree that Scott McCloud belongs on it, though I'd nominate him for ZOT rather
>than UNDERSTANDING COMICS.
Nah, Zot no matter how good wasn't revolutionairy. At heart it was still a
superhero sf title, with a penchant for slice of live stories. Understanding
Comics otoh was something pretty new: a theoratical work about comics
done in comics form.
Martin Wisse
Scott Conner
Jean-Marc Lofficier wrote in message <36F440EC...@starwatcher.org>...
>
>
>Martin Wisse wrote:
>
>> From their press release, as posted by Dean Haspiel on Comix-L:
>>
>> THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
>>
>> As selected by the editorial board of
>> THE COMICS JOURNAL
>>
I'm sure we could all argue/debate the relative placings of some of the
titles.
Like Prince Valiant at #100 while Julie Doucet's Dirty Plotte is ranked
higher????
Egads : ) It's all a matter of personal taste.
--Scott--
PatDOneill
>THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
>
>As selected by the editorial board of
>THE COMICS JOURNAL
>Comments?
Where's Superman by Siegel and Shuster? How can they list Fantastic Four,
Plastic Man, Spider-Man, Captain Marvel, Fourth World and Watchmen without
acknowledging the character that established and popularized the idea of the
superhero?
That's like giving an award for originality to the Flintstones without
acknowledging the Honeymooners.
Best, Pat
The words and opinions expressed are those of Patrick Daniel O'Neill and do not
represent the opinions or policies of WIZARD: THE GUIDE TO COMICS.
Mike Chary
>On 21 Mar 1999 00:09:51 GMT, raye...@aol.com (Ray Elliot) wrote:
>
>> Two comments--No SUPERMAN or BATMAN????
>
>Well, i can understand that. I don't think there have ever been
>Superman or Batman stories good enough to be included in
>a top 100 of comics, including the original creators work.
>YMMV.
And yet Lee and Kirby's FF does? Not a chance in the world.
Additionally, anyone who thinks there are 31 comics better than Jack
Cole's Plastic Man and at least a hundred better than "The Phantom" is
just nutso. "Cages?" One of the hundred best? Do me a favor.
At least it accomplished something I didn't think was possible: it made
that list of 100 greatest books seem reasonable by comparison.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
GIVE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL A NEW TRIAL!! http://www.slip.net/~kbaird/freemumia.html
http://www.sff.net/people/tbisson/MUMIA.html
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." - Roger Bacon
Alan L. Stone
Please reread the first paragraph before continuing...
> THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
>
> As selected by the editorial board of
> THE COMICS JOURNAL
>
> Fantagraphics Books is proud to present a very special issue of The
> Comics Journal. For those unfamiliar, The Comics Journal has been the
> most respected source for literary criticism of the comic book and
> comic strip medium for 23 years, since its founding by Fantagraphics
> Books President Gary Groth in 1976. This "Top 100" list - inspired in
> part by similar end-of-the-century lists prepared for film and
> literature - is an effort to raise awareness of the artform of comics
> and spark a national dialogue to ensure that the great works in comics
> are not lost to history. It includes only English-language works
> published this century - the magazine's primary realm of interest -
> be they newspaper strips, comic books, graphic novels, editorial
> cartoons, or even caricatures.
I've already seen many responses to this list. Fantagraphics
qualifies their list by stating "English-language" and then
describing what IS a comic.
I think I would have to agree with the majority of this list.
The average reader of this newsgroup is no doubt biased
to the comic book format, but we need to be more open to
all genres of comics.
I think the editor(s) of this list made one glaring mistake.
By segmenting all of the different stories produced by
the Hernandez brothers, several slots were taken away from
other important works. Not to dismiss their work, but a
listing of Love & Rockets by Hernandez Bros. would have been
better. Plus, it doesn't reflect of some kind of nepotism
by promoting a Fantagraphics title.
So, what is missing? Let's consider the comic book format first.
Clearly Cerebus by Dave Sim. This comic open has been the
guiding light for small press comics for over 20 years.
The Sandman. Neil Gaiman makes this list only once with Mr Punch.
Bone by Jeff Smith. In the middle of a market crash, and very
small press title built momentum to break into the top 100 selling
titles. His success lead to a rebirth of the independent market.
Barry Windsor-Smith's run on Conan the Barbarian.
Miracleman. I still find this title written by Alan Moore
with various artists (1-7,9-16, 8 was not by Alan Moore)
to be the most striking tale of superheroes. I don't
think we can dismiss any of Alan Moore's appearances on
this list, but I think Miracleman is the best.
Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. If we are talking
about groundbreaking or evolutionary, this is it.
What about comic strips? Certainly Flash Gordon was as
important as Dick Tracy. I think there are a lot of
classic strips (read: no longer being syndicated)
and they just can't all be listed. This Top 100 list
did a great job of picking the cream of the crop.
Four of the top five are comic strips. I could suggest
a few other strips. Bloom County, The Far Side,
Dennis the Menace and The Phantom.
All in all, I would agree with about 75% of the list.
cheers, alan
--------------------------------------------------------
| Alan L. Stone | email: ast...@mail.cern.ch |
| LSU Dept of Physics | alan....@earthling.net |
| 202 Nicholson Hall | phone: (225) 388 6561 |
| Baton Rouge LA 70803 | fax: (225) 388 5585 |
| URL: http://L3WWW.CERN.CH/homepages/astone |
--------------------------------------------------------
SRoweCanoe
Elliot) writes:
>Another comment-NO Flash Gordon or Secret Agent X-9 by Alex Raymond?????
>
they look good, but don't read too good
In my view.
Steven Rowe
########################################################################
Don't forget to Delete "Unspam" if you wish to e- mail me.
Add witty and clever sayings here...
the big damonski
Martin Wisse wrote:
then why did they do exactly what they were denouncing above?
Pedro Dias
: Martin Wisse wrote:
: > From their press release, as posted by Dean Haspiel on Comix-L:
: >
: > THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
: >
: > As selected by the editorial board of
: > THE COMICS JOURNAL
: >
: > Comments?
: >
: > Martin Wisse
: Maybe they should have made it clear that it's the top 100 *AMERICAN*
: COMICS. (Or rather ENGLISH-LANGUAGE since some UK stuff is included).
I'm not sure the Journal's staff understands how provincial their view of
the world of graphic narrative is, Mr Lofficier. Even in terms of American
comics, their purview is absurdly narrow (for the poster who could not
think of a Batman/Superman comic to include, I would nominate
Miller/Mazzuchelli's Batman: Year One. Or their Daredevil run, the best
thing done in the mainstram in many a moo, in my unassailable opinion).
They don't even seem aware that people like Herge, Giraud,
Uderzo/Goscinny, Pratt et al exist, let alone that they might matter.
Although I think I spotted one German comic in there, didn't I?
Edward Lewis Wilkinson, Jr.
>
>From their press release, as posted by Dean Haspiel on Comix-L:
>
> THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
>
>As selected by the editorial board of
>THE COMICS JOURNAL
>
>Comments?
>
In general, most of the stuff that I'm familiar with on the list seems
reasonable for such a list. I have a few criticisms listed below.
I understand Fantographic's desire to minimize attention to mainstream
superhero comics, but considering their importance to the English
speaking comics medium, I'd have made more effort to include stuff;
especially considering the weakness of some of the items that made it.
Since Frank Miller is missing, putting Dark Knight Returns might be a
way to get both him and Batman on the list.
In general, while Superman and Batman are not on the list, I can
understand that; because while they are superhero archetypes, the
individual stories don't stand out that much in the comics world,
except against other stories featuring the same heros (for example,
the Denny O'Neal/Neal Adams Batman stories might be considered among
the better Batman stories, but it's not unreasonable that they're not
on a 100 best comics of the century list).
Lee/Kirby's Fantastic Four and Lee/Ditko's Spiderman are satisfying as
representative of Marvel in the silver age, but missing is work from
DC, besides Jack Kirby's Fourth World and Sugar and Spike (which I
find enjoyable, but don't hold in the same esteem it gets from many).
I'd try to find away to include DC work by Gil Kane, Joe Kubert,
Carmine Infantino, Gardner Fox, John Broome, Ramona Fradon, etc.
possibly in some sort of consolidated entry.
There's a lot of stuff that seems obscure and I wonder how it got on
the list (The Kinder-Kids by Lyonel Feininger, Julius Knipl, Real
Estate Photographer by Ben Katchor) while familiar stuff such as Flash
Gordon or B.C./Wizard of Id or Sandman is missing. I'll have to take
their word for it until I see it and can make my own judgement.
Considering some of the stuff that has been included, the omission of
Cerebus is very glaring. How does Dirty Plotte rate higher? Or
Feiffer?
Also, I'd consolidate the entries of several people who appear on the
list multiple times. For example, I'd combine Carl Barks Donald Duck
and Uncle Scrooge into one entry. The Hernandez Brothers: I'd combine
their entries into one or two (one for each brother); for example "The
Love and Rockets stories of Jaime Hernandez". For Harvey Kurtzman,
I'd put Mad and the E.C. war books on. I wouldn't put every
individual thing he did. Maybe an entry such as "The Non-EC
Kurtzman".
Also, I wouldn't consider Al Hirschfield's caricatures or R. Crumb's
sketchbooks to be comics. Hirschfield may be well exposed, but even
if it were comics, would it be among the 100 best?
Carl Henderson
>I think I would have to agree with the majority of this list.
>The average reader of this newsgroup is no doubt biased
>to the comic book format, but we need to be more open to
>all genres of comics.
I don't think it is a matter of being more open to other genres of comics.
Fantagraphics list is mixing apples and oranges. Comic strips, comic books,
and one-panel comics are not the same thing. A list that lumps them
together--while perhaps an amusing mental exercise--make about as much sense
as producing a list of the "Top 100 Movies, TV Series, and Music Videos" of
the century.
Sure, one could come up with such a list--it just wouldn't say that much.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Henderson
carl.he...@airmail.net
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Chang
Mike Chary wrote:
> At least it accomplished something I didn't think was possible: it made that
> list of 100 greatest books seem reasonable by comparison.
Where do you think Paul Auster would've eventually fit on that list? *snicker*
Gawd. Either that's a sad comment on the state of the various "comic media" or a
pretty good condemnation of the Comics Journal's list in itself. I feel safer
going with the latter.
To be fair, the much ballyhooed list that I'm pretty sure you're referring to
only considered 20th century novels written in the English language.
And I have to admit, I'm a sucker for lists.
-Kevin
don't get me wrong, Paul Auster isn't _awful_ or anything.
Kevin Chang
Mike Chary wrote:
> PatDOneill <patdo...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
> >>From: mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl (Martin Wisse)
> >
> >>THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
> >>
> >>As selected by the editorial board of
> >>THE COMICS JOURNAL
> >
> >>Comments?
> >
> >Where's Superman by Siegel and Shuster? How can they list Fantastic Four,
> >Plastic Man, Spider-Man, Captain Marvel, Fourth World and Watchmen without
> >acknowledging the character that established and popularized the idea of the
> >superhero?
>
> Because originality is not the sole determinant of quality.
I agree, but I tend to think it is the most important determinant (though not
always or even often overwhelmingly so.)
> Jack Cole's Plastic Man and the Fawcett Captain Marvel are clearly beyond any
> Superman story in terms of quality. The originality of the creation is a bit
> irrelevant on that basis.
I definitely don't think originality can be considered irrelevant in any case of
art or literature. Take the example of Pop Art. One could argue that today, a
Warhol-esque triptych featuring Monica Lewinsky would resonate more than one of
Marilyn Monroe, had the entire Pop Art movement never existed and flourished. But
I'm pretty sure that if an artist tried to seriously present such a work today,
Pop Art having already come and gone, he or she would be laughed out of the room,
and rightfully so.
Originality certainly doesn't "trump" quality, though if anything I think this is
more often closer to the case than the converse, as long as a certain (high)
measure of quality is attained. To take another fine art example, Raphael
effectively rendered all further realism in figure painting obsolete, based on
his original mastery. The same could be said for Rembrandt's portraiture. These
appraisals are a lot more subjective, I realize, though all the same hardly
original on my part.
I guess you could say "high measure of quality" is the sticking point here, but I
don't think so. Over the past 400 years, I'm sure there have been thousands of
people who could paint figures as well as Raphael; a lot of people on these
newsgroups would probably argue that Alex Ross can. ;) But isn't that the rub? I
mean, what's the point? In this case, I think originality is precisely what makes
Raphael Art and Alex Ross, as talented as he may be, well, not.
I've probably extended my analogue well more than I should have. Anyway, I
would've liked to have seen Superman there. YMMV.
-Kevin
WinningerR
in exploring the medium, I'd rate it as slightly more useful than AFI's similar
list for motion pictures.
I have to echo some of the earlier comments about the over-representation of
the Hernandez brothers. Their work definitely merits inclusion, but they're
occupying too many slots. I suspect this anomaly is a byproduct of compiling
several independent lists. Similarly, I think Alan Moore might be
over-represented -- stick with V, I'd say. (Pictopia?).
While I certainly don't miss the Siegel/Schuster Superman stories, the
Kane/Finger Batman, Cerebus, or Sandman, I was surprised by the absence of Dark
Knight Returns.
Martin Wisse
>Martin Wisse <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> wrote:
>>On 21 Mar 1999 00:09:51 GMT, raye...@aol.com (Ray Elliot) wrote:
>>
>>> Two comments--No SUPERMAN or BATMAN????
>>
>>Well, i can understand that. I don't think there have ever been
>>Superman or Batman stories good enough to be included in
>>a top 100 of comics, including the original creators work.
>>YMMV.
>
>And yet Lee and Kirby's FF does? Not a chance in the world.
Not the entire 102 issue run, i agree. But yes, the Lee/Kirby run on FF, at its
best, was better then anything ever done on Superman or Batman.
>Additionally, anyone who thinks there are 31 comics better than Jack
>Cole's Plastic Man and at least a hundred better than "The Phantom" is
>just nutso. "Cages?" One of the hundred best? Do me a favor.
Why not? It suprised me it wasn't rated higher. I would.
And what's so special about the Phantom?
>At least it accomplished something I didn't think was possible: it made
>that list of 100 greatest books seem reasonable by comparison.
Heh. That's the beauty of these lists: nobody will ever agree with them.
Martin Wisse
Martin Wisse
<jean...@starwatcher.org> wrote:
>
>
>Martin Wisse wrote:
>
>> From their press release, as posted by Dean Haspiel on Comix-L:
>>
>> THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
>>
>> As selected by the editorial board of
>> THE COMICS JOURNAL
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Martin Wisse
>
> Maybe they should have made it clear that it's the top 100 *AMERICAN*
>COMICS. (Or rather ENGLISH-LANGUAGE since some UK stuff is included).
The press release did state that:
>it includes only English-language works
>published this century - the magazine's primary realm of interest -
>be they newspaper strips, comic books, graphic novels, editorial
>cartoons, or even caricatures.
Martin Wisse
Martin Wisse
>>From: mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl (Martin Wisse)
>
>>THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
>>
>>As selected by the editorial board of
>>THE COMICS JOURNAL
>
>>Comments?
>
>Where's Superman by Siegel and Shuster? How can they list Fantastic Four,
>Plastic Man, Spider-Man, Captain Marvel, Fourth World and Watchmen without
>acknowledging the character that established and popularized the idea of the
>superhero?
Because the list is about the best comics of the century, not the most
important? And maybe the people who made this list didn't think
Superman made the cut?
>That's like giving an award for originality to the Flintstones without
>acknowledging the Honeymooners.
Martin Wisse
Martin Wisse
Jr.) wrote:
>mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl (Martin Wisse) wrote:
>
>>
>>From their press release, as posted by Dean Haspiel on Comix-L:
>>
>> THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
>>
>>As selected by the editorial board of
>>THE COMICS JOURNAL
>>
>>Comments?
>>
>In general, most of the stuff that I'm familiar with on the list seems
>reasonable for such a list. I have a few criticisms listed below.
>
>I understand Fantographic's desire to minimize attention to mainstream
>superhero comics, but considering their importance to the English
>speaking comics medium, I'd have made more effort to include stuff;
>especially considering the weakness of some of the items that made it.
>Since Frank Miller is missing, putting Dark Knight Returns might be a
>way to get both him and Batman on the list.
>Lee/Kirby's Fantastic Four and Lee/Ditko's Spiderman are satisfying as
>representative of Marvel in the silver age, but missing is work from
>DC, besides Jack Kirby's Fourth World and Sugar and Spike (which I
>find enjoyable, but don't hold in the same esteem it gets from many).
>I'd try to find away to include DC work by Gil Kane, Joe Kubert,
>Carmine Infantino, Gardner Fox, John Broome, Ramona Fradon, etc.
>possibly in some sort of consolidated entry.
>
>There's a lot of stuff that seems obscure and I wonder how it got on
>the list (The Kinder-Kids by Lyonel Feininger, Julius Knipl, Real
>Estate Photographer by Ben Katchor) while familiar stuff such as Flash
>Gordon or B.C./Wizard of Id or Sandman is missing. I'll have to take
>their word for it until I see it and can make my own judgement.
I think you're missing the point here. This list is what TCJ thinks are the best
comics of the century, not the most familiar or important. It isn't about giving
each creator a spot on the list or about balancing the entries so each decade
has its own representations. It's just a list of comics a certain group of
people think are the best comics of the century, more or less.
>Considering some of the stuff that has been included, the omission of
>Cerebus is very glaring. How does Dirty Plotte rate higher? Or
>Feiffer?
I agree there. Cerebus, or at least parts of Cerebus are among the best
comics of the last 20 years. High Society or Church and State e.g.
>Also, I'd consolidate the entries of several people who appear on the
>list multiple times. For example, I'd combine Carl Barks Donald Duck
>and Uncle Scrooge into one entry. The Hernandez Brothers: I'd combine
>their entries into one or two (one for each brother); for example "The
>Love and Rockets stories of Jaime Hernandez". For Harvey Kurtzman,
>I'd put Mad and the E.C. war books on. I wouldn't put every
>individual thing he did. Maybe an entry such as "The Non-EC
>Kurtzman".
But the list isn't about best cartoonists, but about best works. So it's
obvious they think all these Kurtzmann works are good enough to make
the grade.
>Also, I wouldn't consider Al Hirschfield's caricatures or R. Crumb's
>sketchbooks to be comics. Hirschfield may be well exposed, but even
>if it were comics, would it be among the 100 best?
Seconded. Though i'm not familiar with Crumb's sketch books, which
could be more comics like then we assume.
Martin Wisse
Mute
>Martin Wisse <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> wrote:
>>On 21 Mar 1999 00:09:51 GMT, raye...@aol.com (Ray Elliot) wrote:
>>
>>> Two comments--No SUPERMAN or BATMAN????
>>
>>Well, i can understand that. I don't think there have ever been
>>Superman or Batman stories good enough to be included in
>>a top 100 of comics, including the original creators work.
>>YMMV.
>And yet Lee and Kirby's FF does? Not a chance in the world.
Well, which do you nominate?
>Additionally, anyone who thinks there are 31 comics better than Jack
>Cole's Plastic Man and at least a hundred better than "The Phantom" is
>just nutso.
The Phantom by Lee Falk? Colour me nutso.
> "Cages?" One of the hundred best? Do me a favor.
What would you like?
>At least it accomplished something I didn't think was possible: it made
>that list of 100 greatest books seem reasonable by comparison.
Ah...THAT list!
I feel like Damon. Eww.
-Mute.
________________________
Mute
>Martin Wisse wrote:
>> From their press release, as posted by Dean Haspiel on Comix-L:
>>
>> THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
>>
>> As selected by the editorial board of
>> THE COMICS JOURNAL
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Martin Wisse
> Maybe they should have made it clear that it's the top 100 *AMERICAN*
>COMICS. (Or rather ENGLISH-LANGUAGE since some UK stuff is included).
They did make it clear.
-Mute.
________________________
The Icicle
I must add my own lack of credulity to this presentation. It seems
poorly thought out and more like an anti-fanboy's Top 100 than any
critical examination of the medium. The deliberate avoidance of obviously
significant series in the medium, either by readability or originiality of
contribution, does more to point out how marginalized TCJ is rather than
provide any objective examination.
Specific points:
In addition to the omission of Superman and Batman as original
contributions, the omission of All-Star #3 as the first effort by a
company to show a shared universe is egregious. I don't think any rational
person can deny the impact, good or bad, that the introduction of a shared
universe has had on the book form of the medium.
The exclusion of Wonder Woman as a significant player is also erroneus.
Like All-Star #3, it was a major (and popular) novel effort in the early
form of the book medium. Originated by polygraph inventor and psychologist
Charles Moulton, Wonder Woman had an enourmous appeal to her original
generation and established her as a female archetype of heroics in any
medium.
If one is going to include single panels (i.e. editorial cartoons),
where is Gary Larsen? In addition to effective use of the medium, The Far
Side was extremely readable and popular. Also, where is Spy vs Spy, though
I suppose once could lump all the "MAD" stuff together if you really
needed to see it on the list.
Lee Falk's the Phantom is omitted and the unreadable Prince Valient is
not? Or worse, the Fourth World crap?
In summary, this list seems to be composed by a group of "specialists"
whose interests are as narrow and provincial (if opposite) to the forces
of ignorance at Wizard. In their defense, I have considered such a list
myself for my web site but I have been stymied by my own inability to come
up with a self-satisfying list of reasonably objective criteria which is
both inclusive and explicable. The experts at TCJ evidently have a similar
problem but that consideration doesn't make this list any more useful or
valid. They should have thought more.
D.
--
"I find that you do better by your characters when you just love them and live with them than you do when you try to freeze everything in place and revere them to death." _ Elliot S! Maggin, on character development in comics
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Comic Archives
http://www.execpc.com/~icicle/main.html
#1 Internet Source of Information of DC's Golden Age Heroes
Ray Elliot
board that made
the selections read the Siegel/Shuster Superman or the Finger/Kane Batman.
Elayne Riggs
> The Comics Journal's Top 100 Comics of the Century
> 59) Little Lulu by John Stanley
Rather tahn by Marge?
> 74) Ernie Pook's Comeek by Lynda Barry
Near as I can tell, the highest rank by any female creator. This is
incredibly sad. I'd rank a number of female-created stuff (like "For
Better or Worse" or "Maxine" or "Sylvia" or even "Cathy," as long as you
have stuff like "Peanuts" up there) higher than this.
> 81) The "Lily" Stories by Debbie Drechsler
> 96) Dirty Plotte by Julie Doucet
> 97) The Hannah Story by Carol Tyler
The only other women specifically mentioned. Four out of 100. Not very
good news. I thought TCJ represented something outside the mainstream
scene. Have they never read any of Trina Robbins' books on women in
comics history?
- Elayne
Elayne Riggs
> Two comments--No SUPERMAN or BATMAN????
In the scheme of things? I'd have put maybe Swanderson's Superman and
maybe Miller's Batman, but other than that I don't have a problem with
TCJ's expected lean towards alternative (i.e., general public) stuff over
mainstream (i.e., niche market) work.
> Editoral cartoons with strips (apples and oranges)????
Nah, most people nowadays who read comics read strips rather than books.
Or are you talking about conflating one-panel editorial stuff with 3- or
4-panel strips?
- Elayne
Jean-Marc Lofficier
Pedro Dias wrote:
> JI'm not sure the Journal's staff understands how provincial their view of
> the world of graphic narrative is, Mr Lofficier. Even in terms of American
> comics, their purview is absurdly narrow (for the poster who could not
> think of a Batman/Superman comic to include, I would nominate
> Miller/Mazzuchelli's Batman: Year One. Or their Daredevil run, the best
> thing done in the mainstram in many a moo, in my unassailable opinion).
>
> They don't even seem aware that people like Herge, Giraud,
> Uderzo/Goscinny, Pratt et al exist, let alone that they might matter.
> Although I think I spotted one German comic in there, didn't I?
No, I think they specifically decided to produce a list of (as they clearly
state) English-language works only -- their right, certainly. I was
nitpicking that it should have been made clear in the headline.
A world list would have pushed out American authors, because it almost
certainly have had to include Herge (Tintin), Moebius (The Airtight Garage,
possibly The Incal as well, and as Giraud with Charlier, Blueberry), Pratt
(Corto Maltese), Uderzo & Goscinny (Asterix), Franquin (Gaston), Jacobs (Blake
& Mortimer), Breccia (Mort Cinder), Bilal (Nikopol), Druillet (Lone Sloane),
Forest (Barbarella), Jije (Jerry Spring), Tardi (Nestor Burma), Manara (Scent
of the Invisible Man), Schuiten (Dark Cities), Loisel (Peter Pan), Bourgeon
(Passengers of the Wind), Torres, Schulteiss, Gillon, Comes, Munoz & Sampayo,
Boucq, Crepax, Maroto, Gimenez (both Carlos and Juan) ------- all of whom are
superior to at least half of the list of American authors selected by the
JOURNAL.
Jean-Marc
Martin Wisse
>(List snipped)
>
> I must add my own lack of credulity to this presentation. It seems
>poorly thought out and more like an anti-fanboy's Top 100 than any
>critical examination of the medium. The deliberate avoidance of obviously
>significant series in the medium, either by readability or originiality of
>contribution, does more to point out how marginalized TCJ is rather than
>provide any objective examination.
>
>Specific points:
>
> In addition to the omission of Superman and Batman as original
>contributions, the omission of All-Star #3 as the first effort by a
>company to show a shared universe is egregious. I don't think any rational
>person can deny the impact, good or bad, that the introduction of a shared
>universe has had on the book form of the medium.
But it isn't about the most important comics of the century, it's about the
*best* comics of the century. Which may mean that All-star #3 won't be on the
list.
> The exclusion of Wonder Woman as a significant player is also erroneus.
>Like All-Star #3, it was a major (and popular) novel effort in the early
>form of the book medium. Originated by polygraph inventor and psychologist
>Charles Moulton, Wonder Woman had an enourmous appeal to her original
>generation and established her as a female archetype of heroics in any
>medium.
Again, it's the best comics list, not a list of milestones.
<snip, snip>
> In summary, this list seems to be composed by a group of "specialists"
>whose interests are as narrow and provincial (if opposite) to the forces
>of ignorance at Wizard. In their defense, I have considered such a list
>myself for my web site but I have been stymied by my own inability to come
>up with a self-satisfying list of reasonably objective criteria which is
>both inclusive and explicable. The experts at TCJ evidently have a similar
>problem but that consideration doesn't make this list any more useful or
>valid. They should have thought more.
The problem is, these lists are never objectieve and will either be popularity
contests or based on the personal taste of a panel of experts. You could argue
back and forth about which comics should be on the list, but you'll never reach
a consensus.
Martin Wisse
Sun-stone
> From their press release, as posted by Dean Haspiel on
> Comix-L:
>
> THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
A lot of posters have already gone over the list, pointing out
the most glaring omissions and most glaring inclusions and
biases, but I think I can sum it up kinda nicely.
This is biased and self-aggrandizing promotion of Fantagraphics'
books by their house organ -- the Comics Journal. Again.
I'm not sure if the bias is deliberate of unintentional ... but
it is certainly there. The most telling sign is how modern
comics are treated. We can argue about what should or should not
be included among the classic strips and comics up to the 60s'.
But overall the treatment of these books is fair and
appropriate, and plenty of the best strips are included.
However, when we come to comics produced over the last 20 years,
the agenda of this list is much more obvious. Virtually every
modern comic book on the list (not including comic strips)
produced within the direct market has a direct connection to
Fantagraphics. Almost every strip that is placed too high is a
Fantagraphics book. Almost every book that is placed too low or
is not included is not a Fantagraphics book. Period. I mean,
TDKR, CEREBUS, SANDMAN, BONE, and others are not included while
PALESTINE, a solid though unspectacular work of photo-journalism
that went pretty much unnoticed, is in the mid-20s. And which
one is from Fantagraphics? Come on!
Having said that, Fantagraphics *has* produced many good titles
and they should be well-represented on the list. Certainly Los
Bros. Hernandez, Clowes, and Bagge should be on there. But
over-representing themselves is not the way to gain a true
understanding of the medium. I presume what they are doing is
hoping that this list will be picked up by the mainstream media
and presented as fact by people who don't have enough of an
understanding of comics to recognize the skewed nature of the
survey.
What we need is a list like this by a disinterested source.
Cheers;
J. J.
Tom Spurgeon
the introduction, I hope this is a step for people to reconsider the
entirety of the medium. Just like I don't expect anyone to shout "This is
the perfect list! I agree with all of their choices!" I hope that people
would get more out of it than shouting "I don't agree with choice #32!
This list sucks! Those guys are assholes!"
For the sake of the discussion about the art form, let me speak really
quickly to a few of the objections.
1. We admitted very clearly up front that this is not only an
English-language comics list, but is probably best seen as a North
American comics list, including British works seeing publication through
North American sources. The reason we did this is to recognize the
magazine's main point of focus. We're a North American comics magazine.
But anyone who says that we're close-minded and provincial doesn't read
that magazine. Every single issue we run an article on comics from other
shores; Bart Beaty (who focuses on Euro-Comics) and John Lent (an esteemed
scholar on world comics) are two of our most cherished regular
contributors. I'm giving over 1/10 of our next issue to extensive articles
on David B. and the great Malaysian cartoonist Lat. We have a fine record
of supporting, exhorting for, and recognizing great comics around the
world. It's just not what we chose to do with this list.
I think Jean Marc was talking about our title, admittedly.
2. As far as judging the list in terms of its inclusion of influential
superhero comics (hilariously termed a call for broader listmaking by
someone), well, we disagree that's the function of this list. While some
of you may be rolling in the aisles over the lack of inclusion of seminal
works, or, more appropriately, quality works by artists like Gil Kane and
(the most glaring) Alex Toth; others will excoriate us for having comics
like Plastic Man and Fantastic Four on the list at all. The truth is our
original list of contributors and our own editorial board picked comics
according to what they believe to be their merit, not according to how it
would be received.
3. Pat, I like Siegel and Shuster's work okay, but the
Honeymooners/Flintsones comparison was silly even by your standards. Only
in Bizarro World are Lee/Kirby Hanna/Barbara to Siegel/Shuster's
Gleason/Carney.
4. The apples/oranges argument. Martin pretty much has it. I thought if we
were going to enter into an exercise as weird as listmaking, we should
make one giant list instead of a bunch of little lists. The Journal's
focus has always been on all aspects of comics and comics art. Scott
McCloud may disapprove, you may disapprove, but I figured a Journal list
should be as Journal-ly as possible. It's not really like a list doing
"music videos, TV and film" as much as it's like a film list that would
consider "La Jetee" and television films like "The Singing Detective" and
"The Kingdom". Apples _and_ oranges would be included on a list of the
best fruit.
5. Dave Sim and Frank Miller didn't fail to have works on the list because
of some stupid feud (perceived or real) with the Journal. And believe me,
the temptation was there to put works by them on just to avoid arguments
and complaints. But the fact of the matter is the critics who work at the
Journal don't hold their works in high esteem, for various reasons. I
worked with both Miller and Sim during my time here; they were
professional, courteous and generous (Dave was to the point he really
saved my bacon). Both of them are very mature artists, and like all
artists, including all of us here who do art, their work stands alone and
distinct from any act of listmaking. Believe me, if we were excluding
people on the basis of conflicts with the magazine or members of the
editorial board, there are off the top of my head five cartoonists whose
work would have been booted off immediately.
As for the rest of it, well complaining is the _idea_. When I originally
conceived of the issue, I wanted that same feeling for comics fans that I
had when I read the movie and book lists -- a sharpening of all of our
creative faculties. The fact is, I don't agree with the list, either!
Works by Oliver Harrington and Paul Conrad and Tad Dorgan should be on
anyone's list of the top comics of the century. But that's _my_ opinion.
Tell us yours.
Making our own list doesn't violate anyone else's opinion; I hope it
encourages discussion and arguments of 100 years of this great art form in
this country. We lose that in our week to week focus on the new comics
pile. Comics doesn't have to stand second to any other medium in terms of
a variety of interesting and meritorious work, and I'd rather have the
Journal's list of works with me on a desert island than the AFI's or the
book one.
Okay, that's it.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
GARETH C JONES
Alan L. Stone wrote in message ...
>
>I've already seen many responses to this list. Fantagraphics
>qualifies their list by stating "English-language" and then
>describing what IS a comic.
Does this mean that Tintin, Asterix etc. can't be included? They have sold
millions in English-language form. I read Asterix as a child in Welsh, a
language spoken fluently by about 3/4 million people and they still sold
35,000 copies. This is about the same as some Marvel and DC comics which
have a potential audience of about 300,000,000 if you just count the USA,UK
and Canada. Puts things into perspective doesn't it?
A comic in translation should be considered when it has the influence of
Tintin or Asterix in my view.
Keep it up!
Gareth
W Lee or T Beatty
(Finger/Sprang Batman) and what shouldn't (where do I start?) be on the
list -- and it sure does seem that there's a heck of a lot of
Fantagraphics-published material listed (can you say "self-serving"?) -- and
I question making it an English-language only list, since I don't see how a
top 100 comics list can exclude Herge's Tintin (among others). But the real
belly-laugh for me was the following statement...
>...The Comics Journal has been the
>most respected source for literary criticism of the comic book and
>comic strip medium for 23 years, since its founding by Fantagraphics
>Books President Gary Groth in 1976.
Gol durn funniest thing I've read in a long time...
Whee -- what a knee-slapper.
Terry Beatty
http://www.muscanet.com/~wlee/
JAH132
masterpiece......
David W. Stepp
(Martin Wisse) wrote:
> But it isn't about the most important comics of the century, it's about the
> *best* comics of the century. Which may mean that All-star #3 won't be on the
> list.
And
> Again, it's the best comics list, not a list of milestones.
You're using the word "best" in a way that makes it meaningless.
> The problem is, these lists are never objectieve and will either be popularity
> contests or based on the personal taste of a panel of experts. You could argue
> back and forth about which comics should be on the list, but you'll
never reach
> a consensus.
Actually that's a minor problem. Most things can be objectified and
better understood if you think hard enough. As it happens, some colleagues
and I have formed a film club in which we are attempting to understand the
AFI film list. This entails eating dinner at my house, renting one of the
top 100 films (actually still in the top 20 at this point) and watching
it. After a few weeks of this, we are beginning to understand the
variables that the AFI used in coming up with this list. We are therefore
becoming more confident that this is a worthwhile exercise to do.
In contrast, I know more about comics that I do about film. An
examination of this list sees no logical pattern in the ranking. The
equation used is:
Rank = Story + Art + Originality + Fudge factor of what TCJ think is important.
On this equation, every variable is assigned a number of 0.00001 except
the fudge factor, which is scored at 1,234,543,211. Ergo rank = TCJ
biases. This makes the list useless to anyone who doesn't know or share
those biases. The problem, in fact, is not TCJ geographic provenicialty,
but it's intellectual one.
D.
Tom Spurgeon
<wl...@muscanet.com> wrote:
> But the real
> belly-laugh for me was the following statement...
>
> >...The Comics Journal has been the
> >most respected source for literary criticism of the comic book and
> >comic strip medium for 23 years, since its founding by Fantagraphics
> >Books President Gary Groth in 1976.
>
> Gol durn funniest thing I've read in a long time...
>
> Whee -- what a knee-slapper.
I take that about as seriously as I would an off-the-subject shot from
someone who was razzed as thoroughly as you were in the letters pages once
upon a time. I think we have cause to make such a claim, much more than
routine claims made by many people and publicity departments on behalf of
their work that didn't razz you, Terry.
If you're going to throw out the phrase "self-serving," let's have your
obvious cause for bias on the table, too.
Ideally, I'd love to participate in a thread that kept the snide
commentary that's off-topic to itself.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Tom Spurgeon
Thursday and I'll find a whole world of better things to do.
As far as Superman, I think that's a great character. I don't think the
Santa Claus story has great literary worth, either, but that's another
great character and myth that's endured.
I'm not sure how our exclusion of Elliot S. Maggin makes us out of touch,
but you're welcome to your opinion. And the vast majority of things on the
list no one on the street would recognize.
I disagree with you about Peanuts, for which I think there's over two
decades worth of work that's exemplary, and the entire run is worthy and
of a greater whole. If another cartoonist's entire career consisted of
1970s Peanuts, we'd all know that cartoonist's name. Most people I've read
at least cite the 15-year period between 1955 and 1970 as being
particularly great.
Since part of our goal was to lead to passionate discussion of comics
works across a wider expanse of time than what shows up on new comics day,
I think we're well on our way to succeeding. It seems like people care
what the Journal's critics have to say enough to disagree with us
vociferously, which is part of the idea.
I've never really understood the extremes of passion that people bring in
reaction to lists like these and to criticism in general. On one hand, you
hear people say that they don't believe what critics have to say; then
they react as if they feel like the critic has the power to change the
world, denouncing them as "stupid," or "biased" as if the very conception
of reality depends on the severity of their response.
These are opinions, and I hope everyone will take it as such, engage it
and disagree passionately where they will. If CBG and Wizard decide to do
lists, or if any of you would be so kind as to send your list to our
upcoming Reader Response Special (called "You Idiots!," because of what I
expected to be the response), I promise I'll be as interested to read
those as I hope you are to read ours, and I'll engage them as honest
expressions of thought rather than as biased, self-serving ad sheets or
sheer idiocy.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Tom Spurgeon
better. I'll refrain from saying that our difference in opinion makes you
"obviously stupid."
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Tom Spurgeon
we neglected. I've read everything Trina's written, and know a great deal
about women's comics, and there were actually more on the final list than
were on my personal list.
The only work I had on my list that didn't make the board's list was
Phoebe Gloeckner's fantastic autobiographical work, reprinted just last
year.
Educate us!
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Paul O'Brien
>>...The Comics Journal has been the
>>most respected source for literary criticism of the comic book and
>>comic strip medium for 23 years, since its founding by Fantagraphics
>>Books President Gary Groth in 1976.
Methinks they doth protest too much.
Paul O'Brien
pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk, www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/
So shall fall ALL who challenge the might of Michael Parkinson.
Ken Small
choices (I don't) or because I'm opposed to critical examination of work
(I'm not) or because some very fine comics that I think are among the
best were left out (they were)-- but becuase makign a ranking like this
doesn't serve much purpose. To list comics in no order would have been
more fruitful, but instead we have to put into our heads
rationalizations for the minutuae of the list. Is "Peanuts" much
better or worse the "Watchmen"? The question doesn't even make sense.
To argue the merits of either does, and I'd have rather seen that.
I have the same problem with the other lists. Yes, I can argue about
the worth of works-- even relative to each other-- but it serves no
purpose without some very specific criteria, and I have yet to see
comprehensive critia for any artistic field that accurately reflects
"best." If for no other reason than different works are trying to do
different things, and how we rate the difficaulty or worth of those
goals is going to change any ranking from top-to-bottom.
So, I propose:
For those who really disagree with choices, go ahead and argue why
something should or should not be on the list with no regard to ranking
or comparison. Simply on its own, why should work x be included or
excluded from a list of "best" comics? Make you critera clear.
I'll be doing so in another post.
That would be more interesting to me than arguing that "X is certainly
better than Y!"
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Darling take my hand... put down that frying pan"
jac...@inetworld.net
particularly applaud TCJ for including Carol Tyler's "The Hannah Story," a
true gem. Given the criteria, I do notice one major oversight: B. Kliban.
Jackie Estrada
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Martin Wisse
Stepp) wrote:
>In article <37051b30...@news.demon.nl>, mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl
>(Martin Wisse) wrote:
>
>> But it isn't about the most important comics of the century, it's about the
>> *best* comics of the century. Which may mean that All-star #3 won't be on the
>> list.
>
>And
>
>> Again, it's the best comics list, not a list of milestones.
>
> You're using the word "best" in a way that makes it meaningless.
Nonsense, explain.
>> The problem is, these lists are never objectieve and will either be popularity
>> contests or based on the personal taste of a panel of experts. You could argue
>> back and forth about which comics should be on the list, but you'll
>never reach
>> a consensus.
>
> Actually that's a minor problem. Most things can be objectified and
>better understood if you think hard enough. As it happens, some colleagues
>and I have formed a film club in which we are attempting to understand the
>AFI film list. This entails eating dinner at my house, renting one of the
>top 100 films (actually still in the top 20 at this point) and watching
>it. After a few weeks of this, we are beginning to understand the
>variables that the AFI used in coming up with this list. We are therefore
>becoming more confident that this is a worthwhile exercise to do.
> In contrast, I know more about comics that I do about film. An
>examination of this list sees no logical pattern in the ranking. The
>equation used is:
>
>Rank = Story + Art + Originality + Fudge factor of what TCJ think is important.
>
>On this equation, every variable is assigned a number of 0.00001 except
>the fudge factor, which is scored at 1,234,543,211. Ergo rank = TCJ
>biases. This makes the list useless to anyone who doesn't know or share
>those biases. The problem, in fact, is not TCJ geographic provenicialty,
>but it's intellectual one.
Well, it looks like your biases towards TCJ are at work here. You don't know
how the list was put together other then it was a compilation of personal top
100 from the people TCJ invited to give their lists.
Martin Wisse
Jess Nevins
> And when and where did "Why I Hate Saturn" become a better comic book
> than "The Cowboy Wally Show?"
One of the most frustrating aspects of these sorts of lists is
that the list-makers and list-rebutters rarely explain -why-
their choices are better or worse than others.
I'm not saying that I disagree with your choices, Mike, but
I'd like to hear why you think, for example, "Why I Hate Saturn"
is better than "The Cowboy Wally Show."
I mean, I have my own list of reasons, but I'd like to
see yours.
jess
Tom Spurgeon
> You are much more diplomatic than I am, and probably just a better human
> being all around. :) Besides, there are a lot of other things one can use
> to brand me as "obviously stupid."
Like Cupid being better than Dennis Potter's major works?
> So, who decided "Thimble Theater" was 66 notches ahead of "Li'l Abner?"
We did!
> And when and where did "Why I Hate Saturn" become a better comic book
> than "The Cowboy Wally Show?"
On the occasion of the publication of the Journal's Top 100 list! It's
written in stone, now. Salute or die!
Ranking art like this isn't an act of fine aesthetic consideration. It's
one of provocation and conversation-starting.
By the way, I was 43% on the AFI list, and somewhere around a third from
my look at the more publicized books list. I ran 81% on the Journal list.
But I would expect the other lists to not have as many exceptions due to
the long history and historical weight of canon-making that's existed for
each for years.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Tom Spurgeon
> Tom:: I would agree with including about 90% of the stuff on this list. I
> particularly applaud TCJ for including Carol Tyler's "The Hannah Story," a
> true gem. Given the criteria, I do notice one major oversight: B. Kliban.
Thank you. Tyler's story is pretty amazing.
I had Kliban's work on my list. He's pretty great. We actually have an
interview with him in-house that was conducted just before his death. His
widow and the interviewer have declined to let it be run.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Nathan
Wisse) wrote:
>
>From their press release, as posted by Dean Haspiel on Comix-L:
>
> THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
>
>As selected by the editorial board of
>THE COMICS JOURNAL
I didnt see anything that said 'Does not include seriess that are
still being published' So they missed the most obvious choices of
Deadpool and Morrison's JLA. :)
Jean-Marc Lofficier
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 08:14:21 -0800, Jean-Marc Lofficier
> <jean...@starwatcher.org> wrote:
>
> >A world list would have pushed out American authors, because it almost
> >certainly have had to include Herge (Tintin), Moebius (The Airtight Garage,
> >possibly The Incal as well, and as Giraud with Charlier, Blueberry), Pratt
> >(Corto Maltese), Uderzo & Goscinny (Asterix), Franquin (Gaston), Jacobs (Blake
> >& Mortimer), Breccia (Mort Cinder), Bilal (Nikopol), Druillet (Lone Sloane),
> >Forest (Barbarella), Jije (Jerry Spring), Tardi (Nestor Burma), Manara (Scent
> >of the Invisible Man), Schuiten (Dark Cities), Loisel (Peter Pan), Bourgeon
> >(Passengers of the Wind), Torres, Schulteiss, Gillon, Comes, Munoz & Sampayo,
> >Boucq, Crepax, Maroto, Gimenez (both Carlos and Juan) ------- all of whom are
> >superior to at least half of the list of American authors selected by the
> >JOURNAL.
>
> And of course, your own list neglects Rumiko Takahashi and all the
> other geniuses in Japanese comics.
>
And Tezuka and Miyazaki and Masamune Shirow and the guys who did LONE WOLF and 2001
NIGHTS and many more I don't know, of course. Clearly I was only using European
names, but like TCJ in fact, forgot to "advertise" it in my title.
Thanks for pointing it out.
JM
NYSteve11
>than "The Cowboy Wally Show?"
Mid-October 1995. Hempstead, Long Island.
What a day that was.
Steve Wacker
Jean-Marc Lofficier
Tom Spurgeon wrote:
>
>
> Ideally, I'd love to participate in a thread that kept the snide
> commentary that's off-topic to itself.
>
> Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Personally, I think it would have been more interesting to pick names rather
than books. That way, Jaime Hernandez (or the Lee & Kirby team) would appear
only once. As it is, your classification system is fuzzy with entire runs
("Mad", "FF") vs. specific stories instead of, say, "Love & Rockets". The
horse is out of the barn, I suppose, but I wish you'd given this a little more
thought.
The reason you guys get flack, sometimes (often?) unfairly, is because you
*do* exhibit a marked bias towards Fantagraphics' product, and it detracts
from your overall message with which I generally agree.
Also I might suggest that it's hard to assess recent works, vs., say, Winsor
McCay where the verdict of history is pretty much unanimous. Your list is
somewhat slanted towards recent stuff because *you* think it's important (or
good enough to make the cut). I'm not sure history will be that kind... (If
your list had been compiled in, say, 1986, you'd have included, say, Lloyd
Llewellyn on it, and where is that today?)
I'm not saying it's possible to avoid bias, but while I agree with the
*intention* (some would say agenda) behind your list, I think you didn't think
it through enough and the result is sort of half-baked.
JM
Tom Spurgeon
<garj...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
We decided not to do translations, because I felt that critics are unable
to do justice by a book by reading it in a language for which it is not
intended.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Michael Rooney
Martin Wisse <mwi...@ad-astra.demon.nl> wrote in article
<36f630b8...@news.demon.nl>...
>
> THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
>
> As selected by the editorial board of
> THE COMICS JOURNAL
[...]
> Comments?
While Spurgeon sententiously notes that "very few art forms
have as polluted a sense of history as comics", the list he
endorses only debases the situation further. Its fundamental
problem is that it fails to identify what it is talking about.
What is the unit of consideration, i.e., what is a comic?
What is the common denominator between Schulz's Peanuts,
Arno's New Yorker cartoons, Hirschfeld's caricatures,
Hernandez's "Blood of Palomar", Herblock's editorial cartoons,
and "the short stories in Rubber Blanket by David Mazzucchelli"?
It cannot be the juxtaposition of words and images, as
Hirschfeld's, and sometimes Herblock's, works lack text.
It is not the individual work of art, as we have "short stories"
lumped in with graphic novels alongside entire oeuvres,
to say nothing of RAW, an entire periodical, and Crumb's
sketchbooks. It is as though AFI listed Stroheim's _Greed_
alongside "the screenplays of Woody Allen"; or as though
the Modern Library compared in one list _Ulysses_,
_Endgame_, the short stories of Raymond Carver, and
the New Yorker under Edmund Wilson. Though TCJ clearly
craves the sort of intellectual-artistic clout such lists radiate,
their oafish aping only muddies their ghetto under an ink
of self-promoting pretense.
Cordially,
M.
ComicBknet
>important? And maybe the people who made this list didn't think
>Superman made the cut?
Obviusly a list made by pinheads who think ZIPPY is better than anything ever
put out involving SUPERMAN or BATMAN the true icons of the Century. Defend all
you want - the list is blatantly biased.
...---====*David LeBlanc>
Comic...@AOL.COM
Editor - Comic Book Net Electronic Magazine *Email me to subscribe FREE*
http://members.aol.com/ComicBkNet
Tom Spurgeon
<jean...@starwatcher.org> wrote:
Thank you, Jean-Marc, for the most intelligent piece of criticism written
so far. I'm afraid I can only be really curt in my response because I've
really thought through both issues.
Simply put, I don't think it's as effective to do creators in comics,
because the tendency there is to forgive excellent creators doing
admirable work on really compromised projects. In other words, my opinion
is that the weight of historical dialogue about comics poisons critical
consensus based on that. In addition, the similar lists done for other art
forms are works-based.
As far as bias for the present day, "alternative" school of comics, I'm
not sure you could ever write a list that wasn't biased toward the present
day, and not additionally biased toward material which is more amenable to
present-day thought or that's simply available. But I do think we're not
completely without perspective on present-day work -- present-day comic
strips are nowhere to be seen, for example. In fact, given our top 10:
1) Krazy Kat by George Herriman
2) Peanuts by Charles Schulz
3) Pogo by Walt Kelly
4) Maus by Art Spiegelman
5) Little Nemo in Slumberland by Winsor McCay
6) Feiffer by Jules Feiffer
7) Donald Duck by Carl Barks
8) Mad by Harvey Kurtzman & various
9) Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary by Justin Greene
10) The Weirdo stories of R. Crumb
it looks like we're biased towards the '50s. I hope there are enough gems
from various decades -- The Bungle Family, Saul Steinberg -- to spark
readers' interest and to ensure that it's not an alt.-comix love fest.
Although I do think there are more good comic _books_ published in North
America in the last 20 years than ever before by a exponentially huge
number.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
P.S. -- I hated Lloyd Llewellyn when it came out. A better example would
be someone who looked like they were doing the cutting edge work of the
future who is left out of conversations now. Micahel Dougan, maybe?
David W. Stepp
(Martin Wisse) wrote:
> > You're using the word "best" in a way that makes it meaningless.
>
> Nonsense, explain.
Best is an adjective. Best what? The list contains multiple media of
comics (books, tales, editorial cartoons). It's like coming up with a list
of best food and literally comparing apples and organges. Saying what you
think is best or I think is best or TCJ thinks is best is meaningless with
a list like this where one cannot even agree on what the adjective is
being applied to.
> >On this equation, every variable is assigned a number of 0.00001 except
> >the fudge factor, which is scored at 1,234,543,211. Ergo rank = TCJ
> >biases. This makes the list useless to anyone who doesn't know or share
> >those biases. The problem, in fact, is not TCJ geographic provenicialty,
> >but it's intellectual one.
>
> Well, it looks like your biases towards TCJ are at work here. You don't know
> how the list was put together other then it was a compilation of personal top
> 100 from the people TCJ invited to give their lists.
You proceed from a myriad of false assumptions, not the least of which
is bias against TCJ. I do not even read it regularly (I get my news and
insight from Usenet and WWW articles, including tcj.com) and have no
biases towards it. I recognize it for what it is, namely Wizard for people
who don't like super-heroes with aspiration/delusions of grandeur. I don't
think that is particularly a bad thing but they should not be the sole
source of a list like this. I actually prefer to read super-hero comics
but have found the lists composed by Wizard to be equally worthless. Both
magazines have an intellectually provincial mindset that disqualifies them
from making a list that would be useful to inexperienced observers. That
said, I don't think that it's an easy task to compose such a list but the
fact that TCJ has failed to do so should not be given special
consideration for their lack of success.
D.
Doktor Pete
it ignores anything published outside the US. Nothing from Japan,
nothing from non-Anglophonic Europe. The best word for this is
"parochial". Can't have Feiffer without Scarfe.
Rather cute not to see any Cerebus there; I don't know what this Groth
/ Sim antipathy seems to be about.
What else? Well, the sentimentality for old kid's comics that I'd
would have expected. I finally discover that what for years I've been
calling _Human Diastrophism_ seems to he called _Blood Of Palomar_.
Other than the peculiar regional bias, I'd call that a pretty fair
attempt. I'm sure that Sandman and superhero lovers will have a
different perspective.
--
"I would insult your intelligence, but what would be the point?" -
Doklands Mafia | http://www.dok.clara.net/ | Read the Complete Clovis
Tom Spurgeon
comic...@aol.comNOSPAM (ComicBknet) wrote:
> >Because the list is about the best comics of the century, not the most
> >important? And maybe the people who made this list didn't think
> >Superman made the cut?
>
> Obviusly a list made by pinheads who think ZIPPY is better than anything ever
> put out involving SUPERMAN or BATMAN the true icons of the Century.
Defend all
> you want - the list is blatantly biased.
No, I don't really mind people disagreeing with it -- there's no need to
defend it on that basis.
I would point out that someone who like Zippy more than anything that ever
existed with Superman or Batman isn't necessarily biased, they just have
different taste than you.
By the way, the real icon of the 20th Century is Santa Claus. Superman's
second, Mickey Mouse is third, Ronald McDonald is fourth, and Bats is
fifth.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Tom Spurgeon
"intellectual-artistic clout."
The definition of comics being used is those print works constructed from
comics art. It's a working definition the magazine has used in its
award-winning coverage for 23 years.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Sun-stone
> I presume what they are doing is
> hoping that this list will be picked up by the mainstream
> media
> and presented as fact by people who don't have enough of an
> understanding of comics to recognize the skewed nature of the
> survey.
And Tom has not responded to this issue, raised by me and
others. Perhaps TCJ has no answer regarding this serious
accusation. Since Tom has responded to virtually every other
criticism except this, this leads me to believe that the bias
was intentional. I have basically written off the list as having
any value to offer me.
Cheers;
J. J.
Tom Spurgeon
article makes the English-language designation, and the introduction to
the section makes clear that it's essentially North American published
comics. We did those because those are our areas of interest.
Thank you for the general reasonableness of your estimation of the list overall.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
JohannaLD
>The only other women specifically mentioned. Four out of 100. Not very
>good news.
How many women should they have included? What's the magic
quota number that would make you happy?
I would have liked to have seen more women on the list, but I'd
rather they get on there by doing great work, not by nose-counting
quotas.
-- Johanna
Comics Worth Reading -- http://members.aol.com/johannald
Kevin Chang
Tom Spurgeon wrote:
> Apples _and_ oranges would be included on a list of the
> best fruit.
I can think of at least 10 fruits that are better than apples. This list
sucks! Those guys are assholes!
-Kevin
Mike Chary
>Mike Chary wrote:
>
>> And when and where did "Why I Hate Saturn" become a better comic book
>> than "The Cowboy Wally Show?"
>
>that the list-makers and list-rebutters rarely explain -why-
>their choices are better or worse than others.
Nah, that's not frustrating because it allows bastards like me to
spitball.
>I'm not saying that I disagree with your choices, Mike, but
>I'd like to hear why you think, for example, "Why I Hate Saturn"
>is better than "The Cowboy Wally Show."
See, all you have to do with me is ask:
The Cowboy Wally Show is, as a piece of art, trying to replicate a
documentary recounting the incidents of a celebrity's life in a humorous
fashion. The goal then is three fold: replicate a documentary, make the
narrative seem as though it has unfolded in a reasonable fashion and be
funny. It succeeds on all counts. If you dig around Dejanews you can
probably find a sort of "Usenet" oriented review I wrote of it a few
years back.
"Why I Hate Saturn," otoh, is primarily trying to be a narrative of the
life of a "normal" sister confronted with the chaos her surreal sister
brings to her life. It has a major flaw in that the "normal" sister is
sort of weird. She might be normal for New York, but she's weird for
Peoria. Normal people don't act or talk like she does. Therefore, it
doesn't seem like her life has been derailed. The tension between her and
her sister more seems to be that she's losing a battle of wills not
realities. Because that tension isn't there the book fails to be all it
can be.
>I mean, I have my own list of reasons, but I'd like to
>see yours.
Your turn, compadre.
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
GIVE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL A NEW TRIAL!! http://www.slip.net/~kbaird/freemumia.html
http://www.sff.net/people/tbisson/MUMIA.html
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." - Roger Bacon
the big damonski
Tom Spurgeon wrote:
> People, people, people...
and brandon.
> the list is supposed to be _fun_; like I said in
> the introduction, I hope this is a step for people to reconsider the
> entirety of the medium. ....
> The truth is our
> original list of contributors and our own editorial board picked comics
> according to what they believe to be their merit, not according to how it
> would be received.
i could have sworn that you were at one point arguing
that quality was objective.
i must be misremembering.
>
>
> 5. Dave Sim and Frank Miller didn't fail to have works on the list because
> of some stupid feud (perceived or real) with the Journal. And believe me,
> the temptation was there to put works by them on just to avoid arguments
> and complaints. But the fact of the matter is the critics who work at the
> Journal don't hold their works in high esteem, for various reasons.
yet somehow not one chapter of cerebus was placed above
kirby and lee's fantastic four.
>
--
Isn't it too bad talon isn't here to harp on about
the new Clinton China thing?
Tom Spurgeon
<umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
Sorry I didn't respond to everyone's criticisms about everything. It was a
lot of work. I didn't respond to Chary's Marshall Rogers argument either,
so I guess the talented Mr. Rogers' exclusion is evidence the list stinks.
I remember your argument, but there's really no response because I don't
agree with the premise. You're essentially saying "Are you hoping your
sucky list is picked up by mainstream media where people will be fooled
because they don't know why it sucks?"
To which I can only respond I don't agree that it's sucky. Moreover, I
think my introduction to the piece recognizes that it's very much _this_
magazine's list, rather than a consensus of those in comics, so I would
say we even go further than similar lists in other media. I've also
encouraged everyone on here, and other magazines, to produce lists of
their own; we'll give space to individuals who write the magazine.
I'm not asking that anyone agree with the list; I hope as many people as
possible can learn from it and use it as a basis from which to agree and
disagree. I can only promise that if others want to engage a century of
the art form that I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's
honestly intended and that it's not "completely biased" or some sort of
evil plot.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
the big damonski
Mike Chary wrote:
> Tom Spurgeon <t...@tcj.com> wrote:
> >Mike, I know all the work you mention, and disagree that any of it is
> >better.
>
> Your disagreement is noted.
>
he's keeping a list!
>
> >I'll refrain from saying that our difference in opinion makes you
> >"obviously stupid."
>
> You are much more diplomatic than I am, and probably just a better human
> being all around. :) Besides, there are a lot of other things one can use
> to brand me as "obviously stupid."
>
implied contracts is one!
>
> So, who decided "Thimble Theater" was 66 notches ahead of "Li'l Abner?"
>
> And when and where did "Why I Hate Saturn" become a better comic book
> than "The Cowboy Wally Show?"
>
january 12th, 1995.
Tom Spurgeon
<d...@maxinter.net> wrote:
> i could have sworn that you were at one point arguing
> that quality was objective.
>
> i must be misremembering.
Your memory is better than your analysis of the discussion. The point
being made was actually about whether we're taking our shot at that
objective truth, or whether we were building a list based on how it would
"play."
> > 5. Dave Sim and Frank Miller didn't fail to have works on the list because
> > of some stupid feud (perceived or real) with the Journal. And believe me,
> > the temptation was there to put works by them on just to avoid arguments
> > and complaints. But the fact of the matter is the critics who work at the
> > Journal don't hold their works in high esteem, for various reasons.
>
> yet somehow not one chapter of cerebus was placed above
> kirby and lee's fantastic four.
Exactly. So? I think Oliver Harrington's political cartoons should have
placed above Fantastic Four. And I had Cerebus on my list. The group
didn't agree with me.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Tom Spurgeon
Thank you for engaging the list, Bob. I'll make some comments about my
perception of what was going on in the minds of our board, just for your
edification.
> Caniff's TERRY & THE PIRATES at #23 but his STEVE CANYON nowhere on the
> list? Personally I prefer CANYON, and they're close enough that I can't
> see one being that high without the other making the list.
I think a lot of people find the Steve Canyon material very weak after
about the first five to eight years, particularly as Caniff's politics
became more inflexible as the years past. Bart Beaty was a Canyon
champion. And it _is_ beautiful.
> Putting Herriman's KRAZY KAT at the top seems like a bit of move for
> attention, since POGO or PEANUTS would have been the "safe" choices. I
> don't think KRAZY KAT had nearly the range that the other two did.
Actually, I bet we get crap for taking such an acknowledged "top strip" at
number one. I don't think any of the three are really distinguished by
their range. KK had depth, not breadth!
> And MR. PUNCH by Gaiman, instead of SIGNAL TO NOISE, VIOLENT CASES or one
> of the better SANDMAN books? That's just weird.
I like Signal to Noise; most of our other critics really, really don't. I
do think that MP is the best of the Gaiman/McKean collaborations. I'm
personally at a loss for what would be considered one of the better
Sandman books? The first short story one?
> Good to see the big three Alan Moore books in the right order (FROM HELL,
> V FOR V, WATCHMEN), but PICTOPIA as a fourth Moore entry doesn't really
> fit. That as opposed to BROUGHT TO LIGHT? Or several SWAMP THING arcs?
> Or the third MIRACLEMAN book?
I think Pictopia gained credence from a few critics because it was in
"Best Comics of the '80s," and it was on the subject of superheroes. Its
inclusion surprised me, too.
> And the two Kirby entries are reversed. Fourth World over FF easily.
> And some of the S&K stuff belongs between them, like BOYS' RANCH or the
> better romance stuff.
I agree that all this stuff is good, but I'm always surprised how badly
FF's reputation has decayed. FF's position is probably due to supposed
superhero hater Gary Groth putting it in his top 10! The "Tales of Asgard"
stuff was awfully pretty, too.
> Am I the only one who saw "the editorial cartoons of Herblock" and for a
> few seconds registered that as "Hembeck"? And what of Fred Hembeck, why
> isn't he on the list?
Hembeck got a vote or two, I think. Although I'd rather have Sergio
Aragones on the list. He's a master cartoonist, who probably suffered from
the "works" focus of the list more than anyone.
> And if Feldstein's horror and Kurtzman's war books blanket mentions
> towards the top half of the list, Goodwin's work at Warren probably rates
> a mention.
I agree with you this is great, overlooked work. I was happy to tell
Goodwin how much I enjoyed "Blazing Combat" back in December '97. In fact,
I think Ditko's work at Warren was really nice. So was Wrightson's.
> Very good to see Mayer's SUGAR & SPIKE, a personal favourite (I'd put it
> much higher, of course). So I'll just note the (unsurprising) absence of
> another personal favourite, Larry Marder's BEANWORLD. And there should be
> more Ditko instead of just SPIDER-MAN. Maybe DR STRANGE or THE QUESTION
> (which brings up another personal favourite I wasn't surprised to see
> excluded, the O'Neil/Cowan QUESTION).
I think Ditko's art may have been prettier on other projects, but
Spider-Man works for me much better than I recall.
Tom Spurgeon/TCJ
Jess Nevins
> >> than "The Cowboy Wally Show?"
> >
> >that the list-makers and list-rebutters rarely explain -why-
> >their choices are better or worse than others.
>
> Nah, that's not frustrating because it allows bastards like me to
> spitball.
Well, sure, but I want more than just spitballs. :-)
> >I'm not saying that I disagree with your choices, Mike, but
> >I'd like to hear why you think, for example, "Why I Hate Saturn"
> >is better than "The Cowboy Wally Show."
>
> See, all you have to do with me is ask:
>
> The Cowboy Wally Show is, as a piece of art, trying to replicate a
> documentary recounting the incidents of a celebrity's life in a humorous
> fashion. The goal then is three fold: replicate a documentary, make the
> narrative seem as though it has unfolded in a reasonable fashion and be
> funny. It succeeds on all counts. If you dig around Dejanews you can
> probably find a sort of "Usenet" oriented review I wrote of it a few
> years back.
>
> "Why I Hate Saturn," otoh, is primarily trying to be a narrative of the
> life of a "normal" sister confronted with the chaos her surreal sister
> brings to her life. It has a major flaw in that the "normal" sister is
> sort of weird. She might be normal for New York, but she's weird for
> Peoria. Normal people don't act or talk like she does. Therefore, it
> doesn't seem like her life has been derailed. The tension between her and
> her sister more seems to be that she's losing a battle of wills not
> realities. Because that tension isn't there the book fails to be all it
> can be.
>
> >I mean, I have my own list of reasons, but I'd like to
> >see yours.
>
> Your turn, compadre.
Since you asked...
<DISCLAIMER>I love both books, of course, and whatever criticisms
I have are relatively small</DISCLAIMER>
"Why I Hate Saturn," vastly amusing though it is, falls into what
I think of as the Woody Allen trap, where characterization and
conversation is warped in favor of a one-liner. Realism in dialogue
and characterization is, for me, the first or second most important
demand of literature/movies (which is why expositional dialogue in
comics drives me up the flippin' wall); suspension of disbelief
should -never- be required of characterization, only of events and
world-mechanics (science vs fantasy/magic). (Of course, there's
always surrealist art, and art from past eras in which the
standards were different, but those are whole other subjects)
The dialogue in "Why I Hate Saturn" is not recognizably real,
to me; I know some extremely amusing people, but I've never
known conversation to so regularly fall into the set-up/
punchline pattern, or develop along a two- or four-panel
pace and rhythm. Because of that, nearly every conversation
in the book seemed like a Woody Allen comedy, where everything
is written so that WA can deliver his lines. I never got
the feeling that these characters were real, and so never
felt that the situation was real, and so the artifice
of fiction - that the reader is somehow viewing another
set of lives - was not effectively maintained (or even
successively constructed to begin with). And so I'm
left with a work of art which is greatly amusing,
but not much more, a comedy that does not have
characters real life to stir any emotions in me other
than amusement - which is not a successful comedy.
Whereas with "Cowboy Wally" the comedy was far more
naturally inserted into and melded with the dialogue,
so that what I was reading was convincing. Of course,
the characterization was well done, too - but unlike
"Saturn," where the characterization was skilfully
written but wholly unconvincing, the characterization
led to the humor, rather than vice-versa. The purpose
of "Wally" seemed to be the life of Wally et al,
whereas the purpose of "Saturn" seemed to be
one-liners connected by characters.
I haven't read either in a while, and I'm sure other
things would occur to me if I read them now, but
that's what I best remember of them.
jess
Sun-stone
> I remember your argument, but there's really no response
> because I don't
> agree with the premise. You're essentially saying "Are you
> hoping your
> sucky list is picked up by mainstream media where people will
> be fooled
> because they don't know why it sucks?"
OK. Thanks for your answer. I thought I raised a more
significant concern than how come so-and-so wasn't on the list,
so I was surprised that you didn't answer at first.
> To which I can only respond I don't agree that it's sucky.
> Moreover, I
> think my introduction to the piece recognizes that it's very
> much _this_
> magazine's list, rather than a consensus of those in comics,
> so I would
> say we even go further than similar lists in other media. I've
> also
> encouraged everyone on here, and other magazines, to produce
> lists of
> their own; we'll give space to individuals who write the
> magazine.
Perhaps then the problem is simply that you (as in TCJ you)
didn't select the panelists very well. A better selection would
have had a wider collective background and less obvious bias.
> I'm not asking that anyone agree with the list; I hope as many
> people as
> possible can learn from it and use it as a basis from which to
> agree and
> disagree. I can only promise that if others want to engage a
> century of
> the art form that I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that
> it's
> honestly intended and that it's not "completely biased" or
> some sort of
> evil plot.
>
OK. I will submit a list. What address should I send it to?
Also, I will only make a list of best comics after 1970. I'll
freely admit that beyond _Krazy Kat_, _Pogo_ and a few others I
haven't read many of the early comics strips. They are hard to
find and cost so much money.
If anyone has a good idea on how to check some of those early
strips out at an affordable price, I'd love to hear it. ^_^
Again, thank you Tom.
Cheers;
J. J.
Jean-Marc Lofficier
Tom Spurgeon wrote:
>
>
> Thank you, Jean-Marc, for the most intelligent piece of criticism written
> so far. I'm afraid I can only be really curt in my response because I've
> really thought through both issues.
>
> Simply put, I don't think it's as effective to do creators in comics,
> because the tendency there is to forgive excellent creators doing
> admirable work on really compromised projects. In other words, my opinion
> is that the weight of historical dialogue about comics poisons critical
> consensus based on that. In addition, the similar lists done for other art
> forms are works-based.
I can buy this argument. But (A) then you should have applied it consistently
through your own process -- you did not, thereby weakening your position; and
(B) I still would have limited each creator (or creative team) to a single
slot.
>
>
> As far as bias for the present day, "alternative" school of comics, I'm
> not sure you could ever write a list that wasn't biased toward the present
> day, and not additionally biased toward material which is more amenable to
> present-day thought or that's simply available. But I do think we're not
> completely without perspective on present-day work -- present-day comic
> strips are nowhere to be seen, for example. In fact, given our top 10:
>
You're right as far as *strips* are concerned. I thought the recent vs. past
implied bias (or lack of historical perspective) was more reflected in the
comics -- but then I agree that I don't have any perfect solution. Maybe I
would have barred anything under 5 years?
JM
Bob Heer
published books on the list. Would you =not= expect them to publish work
that they (and the people they'd ask to help compile the list) consider
great?
A lot of the list isn't stuff that's to my taste, of course (and a solid
chunk I've never read). Maybe a third would make my list, and those
mostly the strips and the more genre stuff (and in a very different
order). That's hardly a surprise. Couple of random comments.
Caniff's TERRY & THE PIRATES at #23 but his STEVE CANYON nowhere on the
list? Personally I prefer CANYON, and they're close enough that I can't
see one being that high without the other making the list.
Putting Herriman's KRAZY KAT at the top seems like a bit of move for
attention, since POGO or PEANUTS would have been the "safe" choices. I
don't think KRAZY KAT had nearly the range that the other two did.
And MR. PUNCH by Gaiman, instead of SIGNAL TO NOISE, VIOLENT CASES or one
of the better SANDMAN books? That's just weird.
Good to see the big three Alan Moore books in the right order (FROM HELL,
V FOR V, WATCHMEN), but PICTOPIA as a fourth Moore entry doesn't really
fit. That as opposed to BROUGHT TO LIGHT? Or several SWAMP THING arcs?
Or the third MIRACLEMAN book?
And the two Kirby entries are reversed. Fourth World over FF easily.
And some of the S&K stuff belongs between them, like BOYS' RANCH or the
better romance stuff.
Am I the only one who saw "the editorial cartoons of Herblock" and for a
few seconds registered that as "Hembeck"? And what of Fred Hembeck, why
isn't he on the list?
And if Feldstein's horror and Kurtzman's war books blanket mentions
towards the top half of the list, Goodwin's work at Warren probably rates
a mention.
Very good to see Mayer's SUGAR & SPIKE, a personal favourite (I'd put it
much higher, of course). So I'll just note the (unsurprising) absence of
another personal favourite, Larry Marder's BEANWORLD. And there should be
more Ditko instead of just SPIDER-MAN. Maybe DR STRANGE or THE QUESTION
(which brings up another personal favourite I wasn't surprised to see
excluded, the O'Neil/Cowan QUESTION).
Bob Heer bg...@torfree.net http://www.geocities.com/area51/dimension/1428
--
Daddy -- How come she's so much bigger than you if she's only a girl?
--
PatDOneill
>>Where's Superman by Siegel and Shuster? How can they list Fantastic Four,
>>Plastic Man, Spider-Man, Captain Marvel, Fourth World and Watchmen without
>>acknowledging the character that established and popularized the idea of the
>>superhero?
>
>Because the list is about the best comics of the century, not the most
>important? And maybe the people who made this list didn't think
>Superman made the cut?
Then they are incredibly unobservant...and the title is "Top 100 Comics"--not
"best".
Best, Pat
The words and opinions expressed are those of Patrick Daniel O'Neill and do not
represent the opinions or policies of WIZARD: THE GUIDE TO COMICS.
PatDOneill
>Moreover, I
>think my introduction to the piece recognizes that it's very much _this_
>magazine's list, rather than a consensus of those in comics, so I would
>say we even go further than similar lists in other media. I've also
>encouraged everyone on here, and other magazines, to produce lists of
>their own; we'll give space to individuals who write the magazine.
>
Disingenuous, Tom. you know damned well that the mainstream media that pick up
this press release will treat exactly the way they treated both the AFI film
list and the Modern Library book list: "Here's a definitive list from people
who sound like they oughta know."
And the lists from Journal readers will never get the attention the Journal
list gets.
PatDOneill
>3. Pat, I like Siegel and Shuster's work okay, but the
>Honeymooners/Flintsones comparison was silly even by your standards. Only
>in Bizarro World are Lee/Kirby Hanna/Barbara to Siegel/Shuster's
>Gleason/Carney.
Says you. In both cases, the second could not have existed without the original
appearance of the first. If Superman had never existed, neither would any other
comic-book superhero.
Mute
>I've probably extended my analogue well more than I should have. Anyway, I
>would've liked to have seen Superman there. YMMV.
Yes, but WHAT Superman? Which piece of work do you think is among
the hundred best comics of the century?
-Mute.
________________________
Mike Chary
>In article <7d3kra$s7u$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, ma...@po.cwru.edu wrote:
>
>> You are much more diplomatic than I am, and probably just a better human
>> being all around. :) Besides, there are a lot of other things one can use
>> to brand me as "obviously stupid."
>
Nah, that's simply the case. I was thinking about the time I forgot
"Vasco de Gama" on a history test in High School.
>> So, who decided "Thimble Theater" was 66 notches ahead of "Li'l Abner?"
>
>We did!
>
>> And when and where did "Why I Hate Saturn" become a better comic book
>> than "The Cowboy Wally Show?"
>
>On the occasion of the publication of the Journal's Top 100 list! It's
>written in stone, now. Salute or die!
You had to carve it in stone? My god, hasn't Groth sprung for a movable
type yet?
>Ranking art like this isn't an act of fine aesthetic consideration. It's
>one of provocation and conversation-starting.
Well, then you have succeeded beyond all expectation.
>By the way, I was 43% on the AFI list, and somewhere around a third from
>my look at the more publicized books list. I ran 81% on the Journal list.
>But I would expect the other lists to not have as many exceptions due to
>the long history and historical weight of canon-making that's existed for
>each for years.
Comics have been along for roughly as long as movies and longer than
twentieth century novels.
Kris Overstreet
>From their press release, as posted by Dean Haspiel on Comix-L:
> THE TOP 100 COMICS OF THE CENTURY
>As selected by the editorial board of
>THE COMICS JOURNAL
>The Comics Journal's Top 100 Comics of the Century
(less comic-strips and non-comic-book works- at least, those I'm literate
enough to recognize as such)
> 4) Maus by Art Spiegelman
> 7) Donald Duck by Carl Barks
> 8) Mad by Harvey Kurtzman & various
> 9) Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary by Justin Greene
>10) The Weirdo stories of R. Crumb
>12) EC's "New Trend" war comics by Harvey Kurtzman & various
>13) Wigwam Bam by Jaime Hernandez
>14) Blood of Palomar by Gilbert Hernandez
>15) The Spirit by Will Eisner
>16) RAW, edited by Art Spiegelman & Francoise Mouly
>17) The ACME Novelty Library by Chris Ware
>19) The sketchbooks of R. Crumb
>20) Uncle Scrooge by Carl Barks
>22) The Death of Speedy Ortíz by Jaime Hernandez
>24) Flies on the Ceiling by Jaime Hernandez
>26) The Jungle Book by Harvey Kurtzman
>27) Palestine by Joe Sacco
>28) The "Mishkin" saga by Kim Deitch
>30) Fantastic Four by Jack Kirby & Stan Lee
>31) Poison River by Gilbert Hernandez
>32) Plastic Man by Jack Cole
>35) The Amazing Spider-Man by Steve Ditko & Stan Lee
>38) The autobiographical comics from Yummy Fur by Chester Brown
>41) From Hell by Alan Moore & Eddie Campbell
>42) Ghost World by Daniel Clowes
>43) Amphigorey by Edward Gorey
>44) Idiots Abroad by Gilbert Shelton & Paul Mavrides
>45) Paul Auster's City of Glass by Paul Karasik & David Mazzacchelli
>46) Cages by Dave McKean
>47) The "Buddy Bradley" saga by Peter Bagge
>49) Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud
>50) Tantrum by Jules Feiffer
>51) The "Alec" stories of Eddie Campbell
>52) It's a Good Life if You Don't Weaken by Seth
>54) EC's "New Trend" horror comics by Al Feldstein & various
>55) The "Frank" stories by Jim Woodring
>56) Julius Knipl, Real Estate Photographer by Ben Katchor
>57) A Contract with God by Will Eisner
>61) American Splendor #1-10 by Harvey Pekar with various
>63) Hey Look! by Harvey Kurtzman
>64) Goodman Beaver by Harvey Kurtzman & Bill Elder
>67) The Passport by Saul Steinberg
>68) Barnaby by Crockett Johnson
>69) God's Man by Lynd Ward
>70) Jimbo by Gary Panter
>71) The Book of Jim by Jim Woodring
>72) The short stories in Rubber Blanket by David Mazzucchelli
>73) The Cartoon History of the Universe by Larry Gonick
>74) Ernie Pook's Comeek by Lynda Barry
>75) Black Hole by Charles Burns
>76) "Master Race" by Bernie Krigstein & Al Feldstein
>79) Captain Marvel by C.C. Beck
>80) Zap by Crumb & various
>81) The "Lily" Stories by Debbie Drechsler
>82) "Caricature" by Daniel Clowes
>83) V for Vendetta by Alan Moore & David Lloyd
>84) Why I Hate Saturn by Kyle Baker
>86) Stuck Rubber Baby by Howard Cruse
>88) Jack Kirby's "Fourth World" comics
>89) The autobiographical comics of Spain Rodriguez
>90) Mr. Punch by Neil Gaiman & Dave McKean
>91) Watchmen by Alan Moore & Dave Gibbons
>92) "Pictopia" by Alan Moore & Don Simpson
>95) Los Tejanos by Jack Jackson
>96) Dirty Plotte by Julie Doucet
>97) The Hannah Story by Carol Tyler
>Comments?
Very much an 'apples, oranges and peaches' comparison.
How about a counterproposal?
RACM's 100 BEST COMIC BOOKS OF ALL TIME
How to Vote:
(1) Only -single volume comic works- are eligible. That is, you can't vote
for a story arc that crosses several issues, only INDIVIDUAL ISSUES.
Graphic novels are eligible ONLY if the work FIRST APPEARED in graphic
novel form. (Ex. MAUS would be eligible (as separate volumes, v. 1 or 2),
but 'The Incredible Hulk: Ground Zero' would not.)
Comic strip collections are explicitly ineligible. The artform of the comic
strip or editorial comic is significantly different from comic book art, in
the same way poetry is different from novelwriting.
(2) Pick the top 10 issues or books you feel are the most important of the
20th Century, as far as you are concerned. Order them in importance. Item
#1 on your list will get 10 'points,' item #10 will get 1 'point', and so
on in between.
(3) Email them to me (red...@detnet.com) and I'll keep a running tally and
post it semi-regularly to this group.
The whole month of April is sitting right in front of us, so let's make the
voting cut-off date May 1, 1999.
To start off the list, hm, lessee... my priorities are a little skewed, but
lessee...
1) NINJA HIGH SCHOOL #1 by Ben Dunn - 10 pts.
2) CHERRY #1 by Larry Welz - 9 pts.
3) MAUS v. 2 by Art Spigelman - 8 pts.
4) MAUS v. 1 by Art Spigelman - 7 pts.
5) AMAZING FANTASY #15 by Jack Kirby & Stan Lee (is that right?) - 6 pts.
6) MAD #4 by various - 5 pts.
7) ZOT! #35 by Scott McCloud - 4 pts.
8) TALES FROM THE BEANWORLD #9 by Larry Marder - 3 pts.
9) MANGAZINE v. 1 #1 by various - 2 pts.
10) RANMA 1/2 v. 1 #1 by Rumiko Takahashi - 1 pt.
You got a problem with that list, send your own votes, and get your buddies
to, and gang up on me until my votes get drowned out.
I won't mind. Much.
Redneck (hasn't quite got the gall to vote for Milkmaid #1)
Kris Overstreet, bandwidth beyond bearing
http://www.txdirect.net/users/redneck - Redneck Gaijin Online
http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/wlp/ - White Lightning Productions
http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/dvpbem/ - In Nomine: Dark Victory PBEM
http://www.jurai.net/~redneck/milkmaid/ - The Magnificent Milkmaid
David J. Snyder
>
> Yes, but WHAT Superman? Which piece of work do you think is among
>the hundred best comics of the century?
>
>
-Dave
--
"Being called an idiot tends to take people out of the dating mood."
"Well, it actually kind of turns me on."
"I fear you."
-Buffy and Xander, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Mike Chary
>On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 18:58:47 -0500, the big damonski
><d...@maxinter.net> wrote:
>
>>> And when and where did "Why I Hate Saturn" become a better comic book
>>> than "The Cowboy Wally Show?"
>>
>
>On 21 Mar 1999 21:28:52 GMT, nyst...@aol.com (NYSteve11) wrote:
>
>>And when and where did "Why I Hate Saturn" become a better comic book
>>than "The Cowboy Wally Show?"
>>
>>
>>What a day that was.
>
>We seem to have a nine-month disagreement here...
>
>(Actually, I'm amused they're that close.)
The real question is who gave birth.
Edward Lewis Wilkinson, Jr.
>>There's a lot of stuff that seems obscure and I wonder how it got on
>>the list (The Kinder-Kids by Lyonel Feininger, Julius Knipl, Real
>>Estate Photographer by Ben Katchor) while familiar stuff such as Flash
>>Gordon or B.C./Wizard of Id or Sandman is missing. I'll have to take
>>their word for it until I see it and can make my own judgement.
>
>I think you're missing the point here. This list is what TCJ thinks are the best
>comics of the century, not the most familiar or important. It isn't about giving
>each creator a spot on the list or about balancing the entries so each decade
>has its own representations. It's just a list of comics a certain group of
>people think are the best comics of the century, more or less.
I'm not really missing the point. I'm saying that I can't make such a
judgement on certain things because I'm not familiar with them. Based
on what I'm familiar with, I might put Flash Gordon or other things
I'm familiar with on my list. I wonder, however, if those obscure
comics are so good, how come they're not more well known? Not that
popularity and quality are directly related.
>>Also, I'd consolidate the entries of several people who appear on the
>>list multiple times. For example, I'd combine Carl Barks Donald Duck
>>and Uncle Scrooge into one entry. The Hernandez Brothers: I'd combine
>>their entries into one or two (one for each brother); for example "The
>>Love and Rockets stories of Jaime Hernandez". For Harvey Kurtzman,
>>I'd put Mad and the E.C. war books on. I wouldn't put every
>>individual thing he did. Maybe an entry such as "The Non-EC
>>Kurtzman".
>
>But the list isn't about best cartoonists, but about best works. So it's
>obvious they think all these Kurtzmann works are good enough to make
>the grade.
I agree that if multiple works by one creator are different enough,
they might merit separate mention, but I wouldn't want to overkill one
creator, causing others to be left off the list. In Barks case, I
would consider Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge to be so similar, I would
put them together as Carl Bark's Duck Books or something like that.
I agree that Kurtzman's work is different enough to have multiple
entries, but on my theoretical list, when one creator gets 5 out of
100 entries, I might be tempted to regard their work or portions of
their as one body, allowing other deserving creators to be recognized.
-Ed
Mike Chary
>lot of work. I didn't respond to Chary's Marshall Rogers argument either,
>so I guess the talented Mr. Rogers' exclusion is evidence the list stinks.
An assertion. Not an argument. It's so obvious that the Rogers/Englhart
run on Batman is better than the first Galactus story that I didn't
really feel a need to support the position.
Now, an argument against the list would take a specific example like
"Dennis the Menace" and point out that it's really no better than several
others that were left off (Hagar the Horrible, Born Loser) while
exclusions like "The Far Side" and "Bloom County" are better than
many that are on like "Stuck Rubber Baby" and "Zippy the Pinhead."
By the way, how did Los Bros Hernandez manage to account for 5 of the
top 30 or so and then trail off so badly that they didn't crack the rest of
the list at all?
Edward Lewis Wilkinson, Jr.
>Y'know ,we can argue until the cows come home about what should
>(Finger/Sprang Batman) and what shouldn't (where do I start?) be on the
>list -- and it sure does seem that there's a heck of a lot of
>Fantagraphics-published material listed (can you say "self-serving"?) -- and
>I question making it an English-language only list, since I don't see how a
>top 100 comics list can exclude Herge's Tintin (among others). But the real
>belly-laugh for me was the following statement...
>
>>...The Comics Journal has been the
>>most respected source for literary criticism of the comic book and
>>comic strip medium for 23 years, since its founding by Fantagraphics
>>Books President Gary Groth in 1976.
>
>Gol durn funniest thing I've read in a long time...
>
>Whee -- what a knee-slapper.
While I disagree with many points on the list an some of the biases
exhibited by the Journal, I do consider them (in spite of these flaws)
to be the best serious Journal focusing on comic books and their
literary merits that I've seen.
-Ed
Bob Heer
> > Caniff's TERRY & THE PIRATES at #23 but his STEVE CANYON nowhere on the
> > list? Personally I prefer CANYON, and they're close enough that I can't
> > see one being that high without the other making the list.
>
> about the first five to eight years, particularly as Caniff's politics
> became more inflexible as the years past. Bart Beaty was a Canyon
> champion. And it _is_ beautiful.
That's past the point where the KSP reprints stopped, right? I haven't
read them, then. I have read some of the later years in COMICS REVUE, and
they're still pretty good, though far from the peak of the early stuff.
It didn't wear the smaller size well, so the art suffered a lot, but the
stories were mostly engaging. I think both PEANUTS and POGO (based on the
bits of 70s POGO I saw) fell quite a bit more in later years (though
PEANUTS has recovered somewhat).
> > Putting Herriman's KRAZY KAT at the top seems like a bit of move for
> > attention, since POGO or PEANUTS would have been the "safe" choices. I
> > don't think KRAZY KAT had nearly the range that the other two did.
>
> Actually, I bet we get crap for taking such an acknowledged "top strip" at
> number one. I don't think any of the three are really distinguished by
> their range. KK had depth, not breadth!
Well, sure, but throwing bricks can only take you so far. I could never
read more than a few weeks of KRAZY KAT at a sitting, while I can happily
read years of PEANUTS or POGO.
> > And MR. PUNCH by Gaiman, instead of SIGNAL TO NOISE, VIOLENT CASES or one
> > of the better SANDMAN books? That's just weird.
>
> I like Signal to Noise; most of our other critics really, really don't. I
> do think that MP is the best of the Gaiman/McKean collaborations.
I thought it was the weakest, mostly for McKean's art, which I didn't
like in PUNCH compared to the earlier stuff or to CAGES. Gaiman's story
in PUNCH may be marginally better than in the other two books.
> I'm
> personally at a loss for what would be considered one of the better
> Sandman books? The first short story one?
Good question, I'm really not sure now that I think on it. I liked a lot
of individual issues, but not always the whole book. If I had to choose
one, I think maybe THE WAKE (with art by Zulli, Muth and Vess), but I got
huge problems with the story in the Zulli chapters. Or maybe THE KINDLY
ONES, which is mostly great Hempel art, and only minor story problems.
And the first short story one had two great stories, two just okay ones.
Nothing horribly weak. THE DOLLS HOUSE has two of the best individual
stories, and holds together as a story pretty well.
I think DC should do a GREATEST SANDMAN STORIES with the dozen or so best
issues....
I guess overall if SANDMAN was going to make my list it would have to be
as a whole work, rather than any seperate section.
> > And the two Kirby entries are reversed. Fourth World over FF easily.
> > And some of the S&K stuff belongs between them, like BOYS' RANCH or the
> > better romance stuff.
>
> I agree that all this stuff is good, but I'm always surprised how badly
> FF's reputation has decayed. FF's position is probably due to supposed
> superhero hater Gary Groth putting it in his top 10! The "Tales of Asgard"
> stuff was awfully pretty, too.
Right, that's what I was trying to think of. I was sure there was
something else at Marvel that was competition for FF, but couldn't think
of it. Except for the Colletta vs. Sinnott issue I'd put "Tales of
Asgard" over FF.
Not of course that I don't like FF. For me this is an issue of where in
the top 50 they'd fit.
> > Am I the only one who saw "the editorial cartoons of Herblock" and for a
> > few seconds registered that as "Hembeck"? And what of Fred Hembeck, why
> > isn't he on the list?
>
> Hembeck got a vote or two, I think. Although I'd rather have Sergio
> Aragones on the list. He's a master cartoonist, who probably suffered from
> the "works" focus of the list more than anyone.
Yeah, I thought Aragones was a big hole in the list. I'd put GROO up
there easily, maybe even top 25, but I can see given the Journal's
leanings why it wouldn't.
On a similar note, USAGI YOJIMBO would make my list. Didn't it have the
Fantagraphics bias working for it? They still do the early collections.
> > And if Feldstein's horror and Kurtzman's war books blanket mentions
> > towards the top half of the list, Goodwin's work at Warren probably rates
> > a mention.
>
> I agree with you this is great, overlooked work. I was happy to tell
> Goodwin how much I enjoyed "Blazing Combat" back in December '97. In fact,
> I think Ditko's work at Warren was really nice. So was Wrightson's.
It would have gotten you Toth on the list as well (another gaping hole).
Though I guess he's also represented in a small way with the Kurtzman war
stuff, but his Warren stuff is more major (most people I know are surprised
to find out Toth did any EC work).
On a similar note, I'd probably put on some of the DC war books. Kanigher
did some great stuff on the non-continuity "Gallery of War" feature in
the 1970s (including some great Toth work and lots of neat Estrada
stories) and Sam Glanzman's "USS Stevens" is in the range of the Goodwin
or Kurtzman stuff (and one of the few classic war features by a
writer/artist instead of a writer with a stable of artists). But all this
would probably make the list a bit genre-heavy for the Journal.
No. Not even in the face of armageddon. Never compromise.
--
Mike Chary
shredded (and it will, trust me) do so.
Carl Fink
<fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>"For Better or For Worse" has a problem in that it's a gag strip that
>isn't funny. I think it would be difficult, as well, to argue honestly
>that it was particularly accoomplished artisitically. It's a good strip,
>but not especially noteworthy.
Well, FBOFW isn't a "gag strip" per se, it is funny, it's artistically
excellent . . . other than that, you come close to being right.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
"This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy."
-Martin Luther on Copernicus' theory that the Earth orbits the sun
Carl Fink
> . . . If Superman had never existed, neither
>would any other comic-book superhero.
Pat, please watch your line lengths -- you're going too long again.
The above is not provable. That is, you cannot demonstrate that no on
else could have thought of the idea. Characters like Doc Savage were
extremely close -- it can be argued that what S&S added was just the
brightly colored (circus) costume. For that matter, Dr. Occult was
actually *older* than Superman.
Not that I'm arguing for the *exclusion* of Superman stories from the
list. There have been some really good ones.
Mute
>In article <36f5...@news3.us.ibm.net>, Mute <mute...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but WHAT Superman? Which piece of work do you think is among
>>the hundred best comics of the century?
>>
>>
>What Ever Happenned to the Man of Tomorrow.
No. It doesn't make sense as a stand-alone work- it's a fantastic
piece if you happen to be familiar with the character's Silver Age
history, but is pretty much useless to any new reader.
-Mute.
________________________
Mute
>> 74) Ernie Pook's Comeek by Lynda Barry
>Near as I can tell, the highest rank by any female creator. This is
>incredibly sad. I'd rank a number of female-created stuff (like "For
>Better or Worse" or "Maxine" or "Sylvia" or even "Cathy," as long as you
>have stuff like "Peanuts" up there) higher than this.
I don't think there's any female cartoonist working originally in
English better than what I've been able to read of Lynda Barry.
For the sake of the children, Cathy must die.
>> 81) The "Lily" Stories by Debbie Drechsler
>> 96) Dirty Plotte by Julie Doucet
>> 97) The Hannah Story by Carol Tyler
>The only other women specifically mentioned. Four out of 100. Not very
>good news.
It would be good news if 96 of them were by women?
> I thought TCJ represented something outside the mainstream
>scene. Have they never read any of Trina Robbins' books on women in
>comics history?
Maybe they have. The point is, have they read the actual work by
said women?
-Mute.
________________________
Mute
>The reason you guys get flack, sometimes (often?) unfairly, is because you
>*do* exhibit a marked bias towards Fantagraphics' product, and it detracts
>from your overall message with which I generally agree.
Top Shelf at #37? What were they thinking?
-Mute.
________________________
Mute
>I didnt see anything that said 'Does not include seriess that are
>still being published' So they missed the most obvious choices of
>Deadpool and Morrison's JLA. :)
Yeah, but at least they left off shit like Animal Man, Doom Patrol,
Flex Mentallo, The New Adventures Of Hitler, A Glass Of Water, St
Swithin's Day, Zenith, Big Dave, Dare and Bible John by Morrison.
-Mute.
________________________
Mute
>>The Comics Journal's Top 100 Comics of the Century
>(less comic-strips and non-comic-book works- at least, those I'm literate
>enough to recognize as such)
>>16) RAW, edited by Art Spiegelman & Francoise Mouly
An anthology. Includes strips.
>>17) The ACME Novelty Library by Chris Ware
A collection of strips.
>>19) The sketchbooks of R. Crumb
Not mainly comic-book-works.
>>43) Amphigorey by Edward Gorey
Might be called strips.
>>56) Julius Knipl, Real Estate Photographer by Ben Katchor
Strips.
>>63) Hey Look! by Harvey Kurtzman
Strips.
>>70) Jimbo by Gary Panter
Includes strips, no?
>>74) Ernie Pook's Comeek by Lynda Barry
Strip.
>Very much an 'apples, oranges and peaches' comparison.
>How about a counterproposal?
>RACM's 100 BEST COMIC BOOKS OF ALL TIME
>How to Vote:
>(1) Only -single volume comic works- are eligible. That is, you can't vote
>for a story arc that crosses several issues, only INDIVIDUAL ISSUES.
>Graphic novels are eligible ONLY if the work FIRST APPEARED in graphic
>novel form. (Ex. MAUS would be eligible (as separate volumes, v. 1 or 2),
>but 'The Incredible Hulk: Ground Zero' would not.)
The two volumes of Maus, or the one bigger volume of Maus, are
collections of the serialised Maus, most of which originally appeared
in that RAW thingy you apparently hadn't heard about up there.
And even if it hadn't, Prisoner On The Hell Planet would exclude it
from your poll.
-Mute.
________________________