Comic Book Resources

Yeah, but nobody's winning anything here. It's just Dick's list compiled from wherever he compiled it from. It's a bizarre list because there's no standardized process of voting like for a traditional award. I agree with you that categories would make the list much more useful and less bizarre. But that's why comics has the Eisners/Harvies. Isn't it? Start the Golden Floppy Awards and make your own rules if you want your voting/reading to count for something more

Scott Pilgrim Rules! Greg Burgas Drools!

One of the points you make is that it's unfair to compare "genre" book with "art" (for want of a better term)books. But I think that this is an unecessary distinction. In it's own way, something like Shortcomings is a genre work, it's just that we don't have a strictly defined name for that particular genre - "Wannabe Woody Allen indie loser stories" isn't quite as precise as "Superhero stories" is it?
Most works of fiction belong to one genre or another. The truly great works are the ones that manage to trancend the limits of that genre - by being better than everyone else working in the same genre, or by appealing to readers who have never taken an interest in the genre before.
Take one of your non-comic book examples, Deadwood. This series is, in one sense, a "genre" work, because it deals with the Wild West. But is Deadwood a "western" or is it serious drama? I'd argue that it is most certainly serious drama, because of the outstanding quality of the writing, acting and directing. By being of high enough quality, it transcends genre. The same should be true of comic books - you CAN compare the best superhero books with Shortcomings or Exit Wounds, because if we don't, then superhero writers will never aspire to be anything more than hacks, stuck inside the cliched conventions of their genre.

So a genre book is never as good as a non-genre book?

Well done, Burgas. Another winning article.

"To truly be great, a genre book has to break free of the formula to a certain extent"

You have funny ideas about genres. A genre isn't a "constraint", it's part of a story's identity. It's not like All-Star Superman is trying to be a world-shaking, genre-defying thought-provoking tearjerker, but held back by being a superhero story. It is what it is. I personally don't like All-Star Superman at all, but if someone thinks it's really good I don't see why it shouldn't be on their top-ten list. Anything can be great, if it's done well enough.

It may be "another winning article," but I always enjoy it when people pick on me when they don't actually read what I wrote. Good job, Apodacalover11. Well done.

That's what I was wondering, Dyfrig and Mory. I would classify Deadwood as a "western," but it's so great that it transcends the conventions of the genre. I disagree that everything is a genre book, because something like noir fiction has very clearly delineated rules, and there's nothing wrong with that. Is All Star Superman great enough to transcend the genre? I don't think so, despite my love for it, but I guess many people do think so.

I was going to mention that, Da Fug, about no awards being given out. I just forgot.

You lost me at Bowfinger.

And All-Star Superman is the best thing being published in comics today. Not just superhero comics. Comics.

You're aware, are you not, that the Golden Globes are basically a blowjob award given out by a relatively small association of scoundrels and starfuckers?

I think Dick's list has value for people attempting to locate and read the "best comics of 2007." Whether those comics belong to one genre or another doesn't matter for this exercise, because it is for the reader's benefit (and if the reader has an aversion to a particular genre, avoid a comic on the list that belongs to that genre). Thus, the list operates in the same way that Metacritic.com or RottenTomatoes.com operates, i.e., it helps people find the "best" of the medium, where "best" = the aggregated value assigned by the medium's critics. Those sites don't distinguish movies/music/etc. by genre, either.

"Another thing to consider is something like the Kirby Omnibus, which I’m going to assume does not feature work from 2007, as that would certainly be an impressive achievement by the King."

The Kirby fans (led by Mark Evanier) believe he is still creating artwork under the pseudonym of every artist in comics. Ditko > Kirby

Stelthwise, you have to remember if you buy and/or read comics featuring any superhero published by either DC or Marvel you aren't a real fan according to the comics snobs. According to them the only good comics are self published books that sell 10 copies and feature gay and lesbian animals that are commenting on the racial and social ills of America and why we deserve to be destroyed for our religious and social conservatism.

Can we dial the stupid down a little bit, please?

That's a very good point, Sandy. It's one of the reasons why I'd love to see the lists he's using, because I'd like to read the explanations of each reviewer. That's a fun exercise, usually.

And yes, Michael, I'm aware of what every award given out to any entertainer is. I disagree with the choices awarders nominate almost all the time, but I still like the categories.

I always love that some people who comment here think I loathe superheroes and some people here think I love them too much. That's always fun. I disagree with you, stealthwise, because I did not like the Bizarro story that took up two of the four All Star Superman issues in 2007, but it's still a very good comic book.

I would posit that All Star Superman very much is about the human condition, no less so than the two works that placed above it. It uses different symbology and methods, but it's about what it is to be a human being.

Like I argued back in the Juicy Mother piece, I think the lessened distance between genre and non-genre works is actually a strength.

I think the Oscars SHOULD recognize comedies, I guess.

I absolutely agree that All Star Superman isn't as good (or even close, Stealthwise is wrong, wrong, wrong) to Exit Wounds. But that's just one example... It's certainly possible to pull out, say, IRON FIST, which is much better than ESCAPE FROM SPECIAL.

And I'm fine with our critical acceptance of older works, too. I guess that format plays a larger role in comics criticism than criticism of other media. The (really, really good) Fourth World stuff isn't new, but it's presented in a color hardcover with an introduction by Grant Morrison, making it an overall more enjoyable package than the greyscale reprints from a few years back.

So the works are graded on packaging. But packaging is really important to comics, where clarity of art and immediate "Gosh! Wow!" first impressions are so important.

"And yes, Michael, I’m aware of what every award given out to any entertainer is. I disagree with the choices awarders nominate almost all the time, but I still like the categories."

No, what he said was specific to the Golden Globes. Even the people winning don't take them seriously -- that's why they're all drunk at the show. The reason they have so many categories is to they can invite more famous people to their awards show.

I'm with Sandy. I like "Best of" lists, not because I need to validate my own favorites, but because I am looking for comics I might have otherwise overlooked.

At the end of the day it's Dick's list and he can put on it what he likes. I have no idea what process he used, but perhaps the most important aspect of a given work is how much it touched or affected him. The first two are deep, the next two tickled his nostalgia bone. Like Greg, I'd be interested to know the hows and whys, but at the very least this list and others like it are a good starting point for someone to then go seek out more information on a particular title.

I like the Oscar comparison, but sometimes we can get a bit carried away with our need to catagorize things.

I dunno, Greg, while I presume it is not your intent, it sounds like you're complaining about Dick's list, which seems odd.

As all Dick did is do what he said he'd do - compile everyone's top books of 2007 lists and see which books showed up on the most lists.

While I understand that perhaps you'd like to see a different approach, which is fine, you wanting to see a different approach is not a criticism of Dick's system, no?

To wit, you don't criticize your smoke detector because you want a detector that can pick up carbon monoxide, right?

But that's what it appears that you're doing here, and again, I doubt that's your intent, but that's how I (and I think others) read the piece, that you're knocking Dick's list because it didn't measure what you would like to see measured.

EDITED TO ADD: Funky thinks that you are just complaining solely about the concept of Top Tens, which I guess I can see. In that case, fair enough!

I thought he was writing about what was wrong with all top ten lists, using Dicks list as the example as it was taken from all the other lists.

I'm not knocking the list at all, and I hope nobody thought I was. I think it's a very interesting compilation, and my only "complaint," if that's it, is that I'm curious to see the lists he took them from, because I'd love to see a list with those Top Ten and what a reviewer said about them. If anyone thinks this is complaining about Dick's list, I'd sure like to disabuse them of that notion. I'm not sure how I could complain about the list. Many people think I'm stupid, but I'm not THAT stupid!

I just find the eclectic nature of the best-reviewed books of the year interesting, and although I like the breakdown he did in the third link up at the top, I would have liked to see even more analysis. That's all.

Even though I'm guilty of the terminology in my criticism as well, I have a problem with the notion of "genre" vs. "non-genre" fiction (of any sort, not just comics).

Isn't saying "genre fiction" just a way of putting down something that the critic doesn't think is a worthy genre? Everything has a genre--the word "genre" just means "type"--but if you create a Bildungsroman in comics form you will probably not be slapped with the "genre" tag as dismissively as if you create a comic in a traditionally "low-brow" genre like the Western.

And, as I think you proved when you listed your hypothetical Best Picture contenders, putting a bunch of things from different genres creates for an interesting list--one that seems strange to us probably because we've been trained to think of genres so narrowly and in such isolation.

Your other point, though, about reprint books being on a Best Comics of the Year List? I am okay with that, but it's probably not the most logical thing in the world. Film critics don't bump current releases off their "Best Of" lists when a new dvd of their favorite movie comes out. But some do list "Best Movies" and "Best DVDs" as distinct categories, and maybe we should more consistently think in terms of "Best Comics" and "Best Reprint" from now on.

Lucion
I’m with Sandy. I like “Best of” lists, not because I need to validate my own favorites, but because I am looking for comics I might have otherwise overlooked.

I have horses in the race. So there is some validation for me.

But I've been actively seeking out and reading stuff on the list, and I'm finding a lot of really quality material - Much of which I've never heard of, or at least never registered with me before.

Gotcha, Greg! Cool beans. That's what I figured/hoped, but like I said, it seemed like it WAS a critique of the list, but I'm glad it is not!

I do think there is something we can call "genre". In comics, in movies, in novels. Granted, it's one of those things that is hard to explain, but easy to say which work is genre and which is not.

One personal rule of mine is that genre work usually is plot-driven, while non-genre work is character-driven. Not that "plot-driven" means the characterization isn't good. Plot-driven stories can have excellent characterization, in fact.

If it's fiction that stuff happens in it, you bet it's genre. If it's fiction that just shows you that characters' life, it's probably non-genre or art.

I don't think there is anything inferior or shameful about being genre either. In fact, I usually prefer painful dental treatment than reading non-genre novels.

By the way, Watchmen and Sandman are both "genre", IMO.

It was Hack/Slash. I thought I'd corrected it, but I guess not.

As far as the reprints: I think there's a major difference between Jack Kirby's Fourth World Omnibus and the Professor's Daughter. The former is a repackaging of material that's been available in a variety of forms for longer than most of the readers here have been alive. The latter is a reprint of an album previously unavailable in North America, and previously not in English. I'd say there's a strong case to be made for translated works of that nature.

For the record, I did put the Fourth World Omnibus on my personal best of list (which shouldn't be confused with the meta-list which was the subject of Greg's post). The addition of color and the order in which the issues were reprinted changed my understanding of these comics, greatly increasing my esteem for what Kirby was doing in them. That's the reason it made my list; the nice packaging didn't hurt, but it wasn't sufficient to warrant a spot in the top 10 of 2007 (at least by my criteria).

Film critics don’t bump current releases off their “Best Of” lists when a new dvd of their favorite movie comes out.

And yet bizarrely, there was a top 100 films of all time list, and Shawshank Redemption didn't appear on the one a few years after it's release, but did on the one over ten years after.

I think Shortcomings has a pretty obvious genre classification. "Character-driven slice-of-life". Easy as pie. And nowhere near trying to be Woody Allen. That would be the province of someone like Joss Whedon or Terry Moore.

Bowfinger was a thoroughly mediocre movie, Greg. Not to mention the fact that Eddie Murphy didn't do any actual character development. The acting served the plot, and that's not top-tier acting. It's also not cynical to say that any televised awards show is thusly invalidated as any sort of critical measuring stick. I mean, it's a giant advertising platform! That's why they televise it!

Re: "Apodacalover11"-
It appears I've officially carved out my niche on the internet. I don't think I like it.

I like your analysis of someone's analysis of a bunch of other lists. I read mostly "genre" books that casual fans like myself like, but it's good to get more critically important stuff on my radar. Can't live on Mike & Ikes my whole life.

Dan thinks a movie is mediocre. Imagine that. You've only posted that in 3 or 4 other topics. How about you tell Apodacalover to stop whining and make it an "official" Apodaca comment?

You might find it surprising, but there are lots of mediocre movies. In fact, there's a lot of mediocre art, in general. I don't understand why you take it so personally when I say so, but I also don't understand how Greg would magically turn someone else's words into mine.

How about you grow a pair and own up to your opinions like I do?

Also, he wasn't whining. He was being sarcastic, which pretty much ensures that it would delivered with a low, apathetic tone.

Complaining about someone else's opinion, though? That is most definitely whining.