A couple of things the “Best 100 Comics of 2008” series of articles at Comic Book Resources makes me wonder about, now that it’s finished:
- Does the fact that, say, Guardians of the Galaxy appears at No. 18 and, say, Bottomless Belly Button appears at No. 44 mean that anyone genuinely thought the former was the better book? Or is that just because most of the contributors read genre comics only? Does it make sense to compile a free-for-all “Best of” list when it’s obvious that only a tiny fraction of your staff even bothered with the non-genre material?
- Do genre books like, say, Criminal, Casanova and Northlanders get bonus points among critics and reviewers for being not-superhero pop comics? Are they really as good as the general consensus among Internet commentators would suggest, or do they just get a lot of slack because there are so few of them, compared to the superhero stuff? Are they really up to the standards we expect from our pop entertainment in other media?
I should say that I read a lot more genre comics than “literary” comics, personally, and I hold many of the non-superhero genre books in high esteem. Even so, I don’t think the best of them can hold a candle against the best TV shows or films out there.
Also, I have read neither Guardians of the Galaxy nor Bottomless Belly Button. Still, given their very different goals and contexts, the thought that the former could be the better comic, or even the notion of seeing them in competition with one another, just strikes me as bizarre and absurd.
That said, if anyone out there wants to take a shot at explaining to me why the CBR list is right and Bottomless Belly Button positively stinks in comparison with Guardians of the Galaxy, then please go ahead. I’d love to hear it. (“I love Rocket Raccoon!” doesn’t count as an explanation, though, I’m afraid.)