A couple of critics from Time pick their 100 best English-language novels since 1923. There's a lot of good stuff on there, but the two big surprises for me were William Gibson's Neuromancer, and the Moore-penned graphic novel Watchmen. These two are mixed in with many of the usual suspects.
Neuromancer was influential and created a sub-genre of sci-fi, which many of us now call "cyberpunk." However, I would never hold it up as a bastion of well-constructed prose. I don't mind it being up there, but it's not really in the league of The Lord of the Rings, A Clockwork Orange and To Kill a Mockingbird.
Watchmen is the critics' validation of "the funnies" becoming serious literature, which many of my generation already acknowledge but the old stuffies try to ignore. Gaiman's Sandman probably trumps Watchmen in the quality of writing department, but I'm happy to accept the Moore opus as the representative of the genre.
Overall, if you only read 100 books in your lifetime and they were the ones on that list, I'd say that you did pretty well for yourself. I've read maybe a quarter of them, and these days I'm more interested in writing fiction rather than reading it, but it would be nice to get to every one of them before I depart this mortal coil.
1 comment:
I think the "problam" with Sandman us that it spans a lot of volumes, even in graphic novel form.
While Watchmen has some rough edges (the pirate comic stuff, for one thing), I'd call it a worthy inclusion. I prefer V for Vendetta (here's hoping the movie is great), but as a sort of 1984 pastiche, I can see why it wouldn't garner the same sort of recognition. The first volume of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is brilliant too.
I suppose the Grant Morrison run on Doom Patrol, and his Invisibles are probably a bit too challenging for inclusion in something like this.
Where's Maus, though? I've never had a chance to read it, but it certainly garnered a ton of mainstream acclaim.
Post a Comment