"A bad idea" is what the Journal was told when it proposed the "Top 100 Comics of the Century."

There's an essential line when judging the merit of a work that runs between taste and value. Consider the former subjective and the latter objective: my tastes, at times, lean towards late-'70s DC superhero comics, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them "good art." They're more of a guilty pleasure. Likewise, while I can see the artistic value in, say, Pat Oliphant's editorial cartoons, they're not something I'm likely to spend an afternoon sifting through for shits and giggles. I'll read old, yellowed Justice Leagues because I find them entertaining, but if you asked me to explain their inherent artistic value, I'd probably be stumped (no, I'd argue with you anyway, but in my heart, I'd be stumped). Likewise, I enjoy listening to The Violent Femmes, but that's more of a nostalgic escape to my teenage years than any disinterested appreciation of the artistic value of "Blister in the Sun." However, while I could honestly argue for the artistic value of Pat Oliphant's work, it's simply outside of my range of taste. I can appreciate it, but I don't really like it. Consider the dividing line thus: I might be able to convince you that Jack Cole's Plastic Man is a strong work in its formal aspects, and is thus of artistic value, but if you don't enjoy Plastic Man, no amount of argument is likely to change your tastes. Just try to convince a broccoli-hater that broccoli is delicious. It just doesn't work that way.

The "Top 100 Comics of the Century" from issue #210 of The Comics Journal purports to list the best work of the past 100 years -- that is to say, the most valuable for their artistic merits, not simply the 100 most enjoyable comics of the 20th century.

The method used to compile the Journal's list works well when delineating value, but would utterly break down if used to compile the "100 Most Enjoyable Comics of the Century." Everyone has different tastes -- they may change, but they're not based in reason. Artistic merit, however, is based in reason, and, theoretically, is not subject to change. If a work is artistically good today, it will be artistically good tomorrow, next year and when the "Top 100 Comics of the 21st Century" hits the stands. It is just these sorts of works that the Journal's list purports to highlight -- works that are great regardless of the tastes of their readers.

Eight of the Journal's staff and regular columnists were asked to compile lists of the best comics of the past 100 years. These lists were, in turn, compared with each other to create the final, printed list that you saw a couple of months back. Certainly, these original lists of nominations betrayed the tastes of their compilers and, more, their ranges of reading. Ideally, by comparing the lists in compiling the final list, elements of taste were weeded out. Works without a strong concensus simply did not make the cut. That is, works that simply reflected mere likes and dislikes of any one list-maker, and were not, thus, represented as artistically valuable, were highly unlikely to appear in the final printing. Rather, those works that were recognized by the majority of the nominators appeared appropriately in the list you've no doubt all seen.

Certainly the final list could be argued to have its problems. They've all been said elsewhere, and need not be reiterated here. Though some arguments were leveled against the comics themselves, most were with the format -- the categories included within the list of "comics." Consider, then, whether those same arguments apply to the original lists of nominees. Consider the strengths and weaknesses of these lists as compared with the final one.

Below are links to the original lists. They're designed to pop up in new windows so you can compare and contrast.

All site contents are © 2002