Bollocks To "Best Of"

Well, it's the time of year when the blogosphere starts rolling out their "best of" lists for the year. It seems like everyone who's got an opinion on anything sits down and compiles their top 10 (or 20 or 50 or whatever) picks for the best of whatever it is they have an interest in. And, not surprisingly, that includes comics.

I say "Bollocks!" to the whole concept. Especially when it comes to bloggers.

First off, I don't think it's humanly possible to read EACH and EVERY comic book and graphic novel that comes out in a year's time. Maybe if you had absolutely nothing else to do at all, including write or talk about them. There's just too much material out there. So the very premise of a "best of" list is inherently flawed from the fact it implies a comprehensive overview when, in fact, it's limited to what the critic has seen him/herself. This is the main reason why I don't write "Best Of" lists myself: I've never felt that I read NEARLY enough to feel I have any justification in putting together such a list. There are easily dozens of really phenomenal-sounding books I hear about every year that I simply don't get a chance to read.

Of course, another main flaw is that "best" is entirely subjective. You can cite all sorts of critical analyses of wordsmithing and line and form and all that, but at the end of the day, if somebody just doesn't like that particular genre or artistic style or overall messaging, they just won't like the work. Period. For example, many folks (including myself) have praised the level of quality in High Moon, but if you just can't stand Westerns, it won't qualify for your "best of" list.

Then we have a problem which doesn't apply to every "best of" list, but certainly more than a few of them: there's little or no reason given for a book's inclusion on said list. Why does one title make it but another doesn't? I suppose there's an assumption that the blog reader has something of a feel for the blogger's tastes and can guess, but I might not be a regular reader and might be unfamiliar with the fact that a blogger might have some complete loathing of Peter Bagge on a deeply personal level and refuses to acknowledge his work in any capacity.

Then we also have the problem of comparing apples to oranges. Even if you really loved all of the individual issues of Amazing Spider-Man from this year, how can you compare that to how much you absolutely loved the Split Lip anthology? Completely different types of stories, completely different delivery mechanism, completely different in almost every way imaginable, except for the root notion of them both using sequential art to tell a story. By saying one is better than the other, you're putting a value judgment on things that can't realistically be compared.

Here's my thing: I read the reviews people have of comics. I'm familiar with many of the creators' work. I can judge for myself whether or not I enjoy it, and I can write my own reviews here if I want to tell you what I thought, if I actually read it. I'm going to judge and value each comic on its own merits and not really weigh it against everything else.

I enjoy different comics for different reasons. The level and type of enjoyment isn't universal across "everything" which probably is really only a subset of everything in the first place. If you like a book, great, tell me you like it and why -- that's what makes a good review. If you don't like a book, that's cool, tell me why you don't like it and why -- that also makes for a good review. But don't compile some arbitrary list of titles that you happen to like at the end of the year, and expect me to give it any credence.

Related Items upcoming