Bone Miracle/MarvelMan Grendel Elektra: Assassin Tezuka's Buddah Love & Rockets (all) Cerebus (all) Hate Peep Show Nightly News Channel Zero Global Frequency Local Violent Cases Concrete (volume 1) Blankets Before the Storm Omaha
Some of the leftovers that didn't make The Best American Comics of 2011.
None of these are likely to make anyone's list of canonical comics. All sorts of reasons for that. Maybe they are too short, or not actually good enough, or slipped under the radar of too many people. Still, are these the kind of comics, some of which might be considered all time greats?
@DanHill: Totally agree. I'd add the same Lee / Ditko run on Dr. Strange as well as Lee / Kirby on Fantastic Four. And early R Crumb on Zap Comix. All amazing stuff.
Consider the "Great Books" that are considered the Canon of Great Western Literature. How many do you want to read? Not many, would be the answer for most of us.
Consider the "Great Books" that are considered the Canon of Great Western Literature. How many do you want to read? Not many, would be the answer for most of us.
A nice list of contemporary graphic novels of varying genres and some alternatives for continued reading. Canonical, perhaps not yet, but then again, these are likely the sort of books a that might enter the canon.
Since some conversation about Habibi has taken place on this thread, and Thompson's work comes up as possible in this context, I thought I'd place this link here. Coupled with the passing of Moebius, and my love for The Airtight Garage it has me thinking about the use of contradiction, ambiguity and inconsistency in art, literature and comics. My gut instinct is to claim that as artists we strive for consistency, but for those who've mastered that, there is a useful role for contradiction, ambiguity and inconsistency. In differing ways, it exists in these two masterpieces.
Almost n by definition, The Canon is a consensus list,, and consequently there should be little argument. I have no complaints about this list, nor with the proposed alternates. I should think there might be a few more European comics. Or maybe there are more then I recognize at first.
That really is a very good list. I've only read about half of it (with another quarter of it on my "to read" shelf), but I certainly can't argue with any of the items they included.
I like this discussion a lot, and I've been commenting on it in my head quite frequently but rarely "aloud" here -- so here goes:
I think there's a small-but-significant flaw to our discussion of a "canon." That is, we're conflating it with a "Best of..." list, and, further, we're using a lot of different criteria (often within the same list!) to define the word "best."
I have nothing against this, mind you, but it leads to some difficulty, ultimately. A canon is, in its strictest definition, meant to reflect an agreed upon mindset -- a consistent view or, in the case of scripture, a theology. So, when the Jews or the Christians determined what in their scripture was "canon," they didn't necessarily select "the best" or the ones they liked most; they selected the ones that were most in line with their understanding of truth and/or faith. (A lot of very fun stuff got left out!)
Therefore, I was thinking we might swing the conversation around to a different point: What is a comic book Canon meant to represent? Is there a unifying theory of comics as an art, of comics narrative, of experimentation, or of moral value behind it? Perhaps these "Best of..." lists can help us identify what we want from a canonical list, but I get the feeling that they have no coherency outside the whims and tastes of their authors...
With that in mind, one supposes that a comic book Canon would trace the evolution of the medium, with the books (or creators) included being the best/most successful examples of each evolutionary stage (keeping in mind that the evolution needn't be linear).
Well, that is one approach, @EricPalicki, but it does place an emphasis n the historical or evolutionary -- Those needn't be the primary factors by/for which we judge works unless we choose for them to be.
For example, we could compile a canon based on works that we deem the most inspirational. Or, alternatively, we could generate a canon of works with the most cross-over appeal. Or the most cross-generational. Or the most artistically varied.
In short, and with wholehearted respect, I'm not sure Eric's supposition necessarily holds true -- not unless we all agree that it's true for US.
Rather than reinvent the wheel, why not just stick to Marv's definition of canon at the top of this thread?
"...The Canon... the idea that there is a growing body of universally recognized "good books," books that represent the best quality, highest aspirations of the medium. This of course is not new to comics, and not without disputation, not only to the contents of such a list, but to its utility as well. Usually books are considered as part of this "required reading list for the educated reader" based on a sliding curve of technical quality, emotional grip, influence on later books... even sales."
Whether most or any of the lists that follow were assembled according to these rules, that's a separate question, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with Marv's definition of (this particular) canon.
So, when the Jews or the Christians determined what in their scripture was "canon," they didn't necessarily select "the best" or the ones they liked most; they selected the ones that were most in line with their understanding of truth and/or faith. (A lot of very fun stuff got left out!)
I'm a fan of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. That Yeshua... what a scamp!
I don't agree that the linked-to list is a simple "best of". While quality is a major criterion, I also see an attempt at representing variety of material. The different categories of "superheroes", "autobio", etc. are part of that, but within each there's a range of different kinds of comics, with different voices and different styles (a failing commonly noted in the traditional canon of Western Literature).
The one clear trait of Canon's of any sort is that they have fuzzy boundaries. But also, what is deeply buried in side is largely the same. In baseball, there are Hall of Famers, and then their are no doubt about it Hall of Famers.
Comments
Miracle/MarvelMan
Grendel
Elektra: Assassin
Tezuka's Buddah
Love & Rockets (all)
Cerebus (all)
Hate
Peep Show
Nightly News
Channel Zero
Global Frequency
Local
Violent Cases
Concrete (volume 1)
Blankets
Before the Storm
Omaha
...jesus, there's a ton more.
Some of the leftovers that didn't make The Best American Comics of 2011.
None of these are likely to make anyone's list of canonical comics. All sorts of reasons for that. Maybe they are too short, or not actually good enough, or slipped under the radar of too many people. Still, are these the kind of comics, some of which might be considered all time greats?
A nice list of contemporary graphic novels of varying genres and some alternatives for continued reading. Canonical, perhaps not yet, but then again, these are likely the sort of books a that might enter the canon.
Since some conversation about Habibi has taken place on this thread, and Thompson's work comes up as possible in this context, I thought I'd place this link here. Coupled with the passing of Moebius, and my love for The Airtight Garage it has me thinking about the use of contradiction, ambiguity and inconsistency in art, literature and comics. My gut instinct is to claim that as artists we strive for consistency, but for those who've mastered that, there is a useful role for contradiction, ambiguity and inconsistency. In differing ways, it exists in these two masterpieces.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/summeranne/60-comics-everyone-should-read
Almost n by definition, The Canon is a consensus list,, and consequently there should be little argument. I have no complaints about this list, nor with the proposed alternates. I should think there might be a few more European comics. Or maybe there are more then I recognize at first.
But it's nice to see The Airtight Garage get some love.
I think there's a small-but-significant flaw to our discussion of a "canon." That is, we're conflating it with a "Best of..." list, and, further, we're using a lot of different criteria (often within the same list!) to define the word "best."
I have nothing against this, mind you, but it leads to some difficulty, ultimately. A canon is, in its strictest definition, meant to reflect an agreed upon mindset -- a consistent view or, in the case of scripture, a theology. So, when the Jews or the Christians determined what in their scripture was "canon," they didn't necessarily select "the best" or the ones they liked most; they selected the ones that were most in line with their understanding of truth and/or faith. (A lot of very fun stuff got left out!)
Therefore, I was thinking we might swing the conversation around to a different point: What is a comic book Canon meant to represent? Is there a unifying theory of comics as an art, of comics narrative, of experimentation, or of moral value behind it? Perhaps these "Best of..." lists can help us identify what we want from a canonical list, but I get the feeling that they have no coherency outside the whims and tastes of their authors...
For example, we could compile a canon based on works that we deem the most inspirational. Or, alternatively, we could generate a canon of works with the most cross-over appeal. Or the most cross-generational. Or the most artistically varied.
In short, and with wholehearted respect, I'm not sure Eric's supposition necessarily holds true -- not unless we all agree that it's true for US.
I don't agree that the linked-to list is a simple "best of". While quality is a major criterion, I also see an attempt at representing variety of material. The different categories of "superheroes", "autobio", etc. are part of that, but within each there's a range of different kinds of comics, with different voices and different styles (a failing commonly noted in the traditional canon of Western Literature).