1001 Comics You Must Read Before You Die: The Ultimate Guide to Comic Books, Graphic Novels, and Manga by Paul Gravett

1001 Comics You Must Read Before You Die: The Ultimate Guide to Comic Books, Graphic Novels, and Manga Reviews

• 
  Sebastien

  A nice survey of a range of comics across mostly US, Euro, and Asian comics. Indie and Euro comics may be overrepresented at the cost of the more mainstream US superhero comics. But it's actually hard for me to tell, my tastes skew towards Euro, indie, and manga, haven't read a ton of superhero work which is a gap for me. This potential underrepresentation of the US superhero comics may grate for some readers.
  
  The layout is done decade by decade, which is a good framework. Could also have split into sections based on region/style, but maybe that would've gotten too complicated. The short write-ups are generally pretty decent.
  
  In a book like this, many readers will feel like there are significant omissions. But all these type of lists and opinions are incredibly subjective, that is the nature of these things (1001 Comics You Must Read Before You Die Based On Our Highly Subjective Viewpoints and Cultural Predilections doesn't quite have the same ring to it!). Anyways, for me some omissions based on my personal tastes: Esteban Maroto, Francois Walthery, Jose Gonzalez, Jeffrey Catherine Jones.
  
  The one major critique I have is that I wish there was an accompanying image with each book. It's harder to get a bead on each book's particular style without an accompanying image. In a survey book like this that is a pretty big issue, but my guess is this was not done because of space issues (the book is already very large, nevertheless, it hurts the purpose and effectiveness of such a book to have this problem).
  
  Overall, def recommend if you are looking to broaden your reading within the comics genre and need ideas for new avenues to explore.
• 
  Robert Wright

  If you think that Alan Moore is a genius that can do no wrong...
  If you think the Comics Journal is the ultimate reading guide to comics...
  If you only love indy/underground/foreign comics...
  If you're too cool for the mainstream...
  
  Then this is the comics guide for you. I'm not saying there's anything bad here, just that something that purports to be the "ultimate" guide should do a better job of representing the DC/Marvel mainstream and larger, popular independents. Some concessions are made to titles and characters with too-obvious-to-be-denied pop culture impact.
  
  But the major omissions and "comics as literature" snob bias are evident and in play here.
  
  This is a useful guide to the interesting works to be found outside the mainstream and/or that may appeal to readers who wouldn't usually pick up a >gasp< comic book. It also makes the debatable decision to include (again selected) comic strips along with comic books, graphic novels, and manga well after the two related genres deviated enough to be considered in their own rights.
  
  I could go on at length about the omissions, but I'll just point out a conspicuous few:
  
  No John Byrne (as writer or artist) other than X-Men
  No George Perez
  No Mike Grell
  No Matt Wagner
  No post-70s Walt Simonson
  
  Like I said, I could go on & on.
  
  There are some goodies here, but it really is more the second 1000 you should read. It just seems like so much trying to justify comics as something "respectable" for "adults" to enjoy. Well, keep your hipster snobbery. I'm not ashamed to admit I like a wide array of comics, from classic 4-color adventures to complex, literary-philosophical tales. This tome undersells the former and over-represents the latter.
• 
  Sara

  I skimmed through this book and found it interesting and informative. It's a bit heavy for light reading (and I think the pun is intended). By heavy, I mean literally heavy. There were some good ideas for some comics I'd like to read someday but I wasn't ambitious enough to take notes so I'll have to check it out again from the library one of these days. (Or perhaps the list is online somewhere.)
• 
  Monita Mohan

  Talk about a thorough compendium of the comic book industry! As one of the resident geeks at work, I received a copy of this book for review purposes, and I have to say, at first I was drawn in and gripped, but later on the choice of entries began to baffle and bewilder me.
  
  The book traces comics to its very origins - the alleged first comic book ever was by a French-speaking Swiss named Rodolphe Töpffer whose adventures of Mr. Vieux Bois was published in 1837, before being pirated across many other countries.
  
  Early entries are dedicated to comics and comic strips published in the 1800s and early 1900s. The majority of these titles were unknown to me, though some remain iconic to this day, including Rube Goldberg inventions (1914), Felix the Cat by Otto Messmer (1923), Buck Rogers written by Philip Nowlan and art by Dick Calkins (1929), Popeye by Elzie Crisler Segar (1929), Blondie by Chic Young (1930), Dick Tracy by Chester Gould (1931) and Betty Boop (Bud Counihan, 1934).
  
  The golden age of comics feels like familiar territory, with several favourites in the list: Mandrake the Magician, Flash Gordon, The Phantom, Tintin, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Captain America, Thor, The Incredible Hulk. Surprise entries during this period were Captain Marvel, Captain Marvel Jr., Nick Fury and Plastic Man - these were mega hits during their initial publishing runs, but bad luck saw them fall out of favour with the public - though Fury has now metamorphosed into something so much cooler.
  
  
  The segment of the book from the 70s onwards begins to drag a fair bit - this is because the choice of comics eluded me. There's a huge emphasis on adult comics with gratuitous violence, nudity, etc., the inclusion of which doesn't make sense to me. Even the contributors' essays seem a bit confused as to their addition to the book, as they are quick to point out the excessive nature of these comics. It makes one wonder why these were considered. After all, one has to ask themselves, would we REALLY be missing out on something integral were we to not read these particular comics? You could say that the contributors are, in a way, recommending that the readers of this book must go out and grab some x-rated books. You wouldn't find that kind of recommendation in a book about films or other art, so why the indelicate exception in comics?
  
  The Underground Comix scene allowed creators to delve into a number of questionable storylines - now while I'm all for artistic expression, the majority of the comics mentioned in this book are written from the male gaze, which feeds into the opinion that comics aren't welcoming to women or other non-conforming genders. It's problematic, and some of the essayists can't seem to see that their archaic views on why women don't read, or do read comics, don't stand because of the boys' club feel to most mainstream comics.
  
  This also leads to my complaint with the foreword for the book. Worst. Foreword. Ever. It brings to the fore everything wrong with comics, especially their misogyny and the exclusivity to straight, white, men. The humour by Terry Gilliam is tone deaf and not funny at all. Not all of us can work in comics, why can't you write about the good of the industry and the greatness of the people who support it?
  
  Editor Paul Gravett's introduction is better, more balanced and focused. However, having now finished the book, I feel a few disclaimers or perhaps a preface by a non-white, non-male writer could and should have pointed out some of the problems with many favourite classics. Some of the essayists do point out racial stereotypes in certain comics, yet the brevity of the essays doesn't allow them to study the pros and cons of the piece despite its inherent prejudice. A preface detailing the problematic evolution of comics as well as investigating how far it has come in progressive representation would have greatly benefited the reader. Especially given that, while racial prejudice is pointed out in essays, misogyny and poor representation of women in general is not. The book assumes that the de facto purchaser will be male - that's not okay.
  
  I read the book in one-go, which is not recommended. You begin to see patterns and it grates on you. For large segments, all you read about are memoirs, which all sound rather chilling. Then, you're stuck skimming through page after page of very NSFW stuff. It gets tedious and you begin to wonder what was in the air at the time that made everyone write on the same topic.
  
  The book does make an effort to include female creators, which is great, given that most people forget that women were part of the comics scene at all. The earliest entry, in fact, is of Marie Duval, the artist and co-creator of Ally Sloper.
  
  My biggest grouse against this book is that it doesn't provide as much detail as one would need to really get into the world of comics. As a casual reader, or as someone who has a passing knowledge of pop culture, names like Superman and Captain America are known to us - we know they're going to be mentioned in this book because they're iconic. However, these guys are almost 80 years old, that's a lot of comics none of us have any time or inclination to go through. It would have been better for the editor to have included a breakdown of recommended runs or issues - a nice teaser of what it is that makes these characters so enduring.
  
  While some of the best issues and series are mentioned for a number of heroes (The Adventures of Tintin and The Castafiore Emerald, All Star Superman, Superman of All Seasons, Batman: Year One, The Dark Knight Returns), most others are not extended that courtesy. Wonder Woman debuted in 1941, but isn't mentioned after that (surprising, given people's high praise for Gail Simone's run on the comics a few years ago), nor is Captain America (a shock really, I would have thought Ed Brubaker's Winter Soldier/ Captain America Reborn runs would have been perfect shoo-ins).
  
  
  One mainstream series I could not believe made it onto the list was Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Strikes Again. Un-freaking-believable that it was in this book; that was the most nonsensical trollop I have ever come across. No one should read it. Ever.
  
  There are several notable omissions in the book, which puts an unsettling lens on the editor and contributors. For one, I can't understand why the book stops at 2011. Yes, it was first published in 2011, but reprinted in 2014. Reprinted? It should have been updated. Heck, I would be very surprised if the editors weren't scrabbling to get a new issue out this year itself, given some superb stuff that's been released in the past two years.
  
  Notable omissions:
  Tinkle - This series of comics was mostly educational, but also fun. They were practically prescribed reading for most school children in India, and should really have made it to this list.
  
  Amar Chitra Katha - Another Indian series, by the same creators of Tinkle. ACK focused on retelling epic stories and legends in readable and fun formats. They were excellent at introducing readers to world history. Again, I'm astounded that this didn't make it into the book. I'm happy that other Indian comics, which I wasn't too familiar with, were included, but these two were popular nationwide.
  
  Deadpool - This was a real shocker. Deadpool is iconic being he's over the top. The book is filled with other disgusting-sounding gratuitous novels, but this guy they decided not to include. How does that work? Not one Deadpool comic is in here.
  
  
  Commando Comics - My mum was astounded to hear this series wasn't in the book. A favourite of hers and all youngsters when she was growing up, this was a British war comic that was jam-packed with action and adventure. Sounds pretty influential to me.
  
  Dilbert - While discussing this book with the family, I belatedly realised that Dilbert was missing. How can Diblert be missing? It's Dilbert - every working person's alter ego making it through life three or four begrudging panels at a time. We're still reading this poor guy's travails and moping at how true it all is.
  
  Classics Illustrated - Another mainstay of the past, these were retellings of classic stories in enjoyable, colourful comic book formats. Ideal to coax any unwilling reader into become a lifetime fan of books.
  
  X-Men: Days of Future Past - How? Just how? It's feels a little like the editor and contributors were trying to 'stick it to the man' by not including mainstream comics that received acclaim. Instead, the essays are about erotic comics that literally no one wants to read or will ever care about. Days of Future Past, like any form of true art, is accessible while sending a message. It's a heart-rending tale of loss and want. It's wish-fulfillment to the max and an excellent comic that deserved to be in here.
  
  The 99 - Maybe not as widely known as most of the others I've mentioned, but considering I knew only a fraction of the comics mentioned in this book, I believe The 99 should have got a mention. Created by Naif Al-Mutawa in 2007, this is a superhero series based on the 99 names of Allah. It's not a religious comic (not overtly anyway), with characters from all around the world featured. It's got more diversity than Marvel's entire portfolio! Instead of including an Arabian tale written by an American dude, it would have been nice to have one rare entry from the Arab World.
  
  Gotham Central - Top 10 made it, why not GC? An utterly superb series, barring one dip, this one prodded at the realities of a cruel world gone crazy - because that's Gotham for you. Since we're all 'the little guys', it's nice to read a series about the average humans caught in the crossfire of bad guys like the Joker and his ilk. It's a detective series, but with more crazies. An absolute joy for any mystery fan, it definitely is one to be read by all.
  
  Astonishing X-Men #51 - The Astonishing X-Men are mentioned, but the legendary issue with Northstar's wedding is not. Look, it's not action-packed, but it's a realistic and kinda cute story, and at the time of publishing (2012) a very brave move by Marvel. They had the wedding plastered on the front cover with the who's who of Marvel's X-Men universe in attendance; that's got to count for a lot.
  
  
  All-New X-Men No. 40 - Iceman is outed as gay. It's 2016, and we don't have any LGBTQ superheroes headlining anything mainstream. So, for the writers to change Iceman's orientation to gay in their new reboot was something big. Icey was part of the first class of X-Men, he's a stalwart! That's an insane move, but a great one that we need more of. Why is that not in here?
  
  Notable character omissions:
  Black Panther, Luke Cage, Oracle, Nightwing, Gambit, Batwoman - Explain how these people aren't in here? How? Black characters headlining comics was unheard of when these guys debuted. But they did; and they endured. We've got them on screen finally and they're so awesome! But their importance and influence on black kids growing up without heroes wasn't enough to make it into this book? Talk about blinkered.
  
  Same can be said about Oracle - she was, for the longest time, the only recurring disabled character in superhero comics. How she got there was tragic and out of her hands (and, it would never happen to a male character), but the folks at DC ran with it and gave a lot of disabled kids a hero to look up to. So why would any of her comics be in here? Why wouldn't they, more like.
  
  Kate Kane, Batwoman, is part of the Bat-family and she's gay. That's a big freaking deal (especially given DC's inability to be diverse). Her series being omitted from this book makes little sense to me. Most people love it and her and the fact that she is out and proud.
  
  The reason I mention Nightwing and Gambit is because they are the only two male characters who were ever drawn in a slightly sexualised way. They are the ONLY ones. I think specifying a couple of issues where readers had the tables turned with some subversive drawings of these character would have been a welcome addition in a book that otherwise seemed to wallow in the perverse joys of some pretty offensive comics.
  
  I read mostly mainstream comics (as you can tell from above), but I'm sure there's a lot more that should still be in here. I'm pretty sure when the next edition comes out, they will, or rather MUST, include Ms Marvel (Kamala Khan is the best thing ever), Faith season 1 (season 2 was disappointing, but season 1 was pure, unfiltered joy) and Tom King's The Vision (melancholic, philosophical angst has never felt so real). I'd go as far as to say, they should include the first episode of Ta-Nehisi Coates' Black Panther (if not the entire series, as I'm a bit iffy on that) - the art is beautiful, and the Hamlet-esque T'Challa is very relatable.
  
  
  At the outset the editor informs us that all our favourites will not wind up in this book. Yet, it felt, more often than not, that other people's favourites had been shoe-horned in here. I just don't see how erotic comics can constitute essential reading (I mean, there's a few comics mentioned that were influenced by de Sade's work, and I'm pretty sure we can all die happily without knowing what goes on in those pages). And what irks me more is how far too many of these comics edged out some actually brilliant ones.
  
  I also feel like diversity was missing in this book. No African comics, barring one Egyptian and one South African, and only token pieces by other Asian countries. The Arab World, as mentioned, is virtually ignored, and Australia/New Zealand together got maybe one mention. Granted, western countries were more into comics than others, but I'm sure, if researched properly, more countries had influential comics that could have made it onto the list.
  
• 
  Jolanta (knygupe)

  Man, kaip profanei grafiniu noveliu/komiksu pasaulyje, sis vadovas buvo kaip tik. Prisizymejau busimo skaitymo ne vieneriems metams.
  BTW, neperskaiciau visu tekstu. Tik tuos, kurie su pavaiksliukais :)))
  Va cia matau dideli minusa sios serijos leidiniuose. Puse pristatomu autoriu, kur grafika tolygi, ar net kiek svarbesne nei tekstas - neiliustruoti. Mielai buciau skaiciusi dvitomi.
• 
  Erica

  Mmmmm...I dunno that I'd agree this compilation of abstracts is really a MUST READ BEFORE YOU DIE bucket list as much as it is a shopping list of things to read so you can talk to other people at parties who read these things. I've maybe read 20 of the titles listed? I was pleased to see my favorite (
  Yotsuba&!, Vol. 01) right after karen's beloved
  Fluffy and my interest was piqued over some titles I'd previously overlooked because they didn't sound interesting at the time, but as a READ THESE BECAUSE THEY ARE THE BEST GRAPHIC NOVELS OF THE CENTURY...not so much.
  
  This is good reference material for those who are not familiar with comics, manga, graphic novels, and the like or for those who would like to understand what it is those kids with comics are reading.
• 
  Nancy

  Of course I'm glad this joins the "1001" series, and the chronological order is fun, and the international scope interesting... but but but. But what?
  I kept being bothered by the typeface of the titles (which are meant to look like they are filled with tiny lines but only look like their printer ribbon was low) -- which can't really be the problem, but may indicate the somewhat sloppy approach to editing this admittedly big beast.
  Perhaps this book is doomed to be unsatisfying -- not because we'd all choose a different set of 1001, but because not every comic is shown (some are just described), and because the prose is uneven (as it is drawn from a host of reviewers). Still, a fun thing to flip through with a friend, seeing who remembers what and noticing the dominance of Belgians.
  
• 
  Rebecca

  No ... nooo - Čakala som niečo iné xD
  
  Akože áno, čo sa týka histórie, tak je to pekne prehľadne spracované, dozvedela som sa o komiksoch o ktorých existencí by som ani nevedela, ale nemyslím si, že zrovna toto "šťastné" číslo komiksov zrovna potrebujem vo svojom živote. Iste, mnohé ma zaujali a poznačila som si zopár dobrých typov na ďalšie čítanie, ale to je asi tak všetko. Nie som teraz zas úplny znalec, ale podľa toho čo čítam aj od iných recenzentov, tak má to aj svoje nedostatky a aj mne chýbali nejaké komiksy, ktoré som tam očakávala.
  
  Možno neskôr, keď budem mať toho viac načítaného to bude pre mňa hodnotnejšie ... snáď ...
• 
  Hal Johnson

  This book is a pretty good collection of recommendations of a certain esthetic of comics. This esthetic is my esthetic, so on the one hand I can’t complain (the way a hardcore superhero fan would be obliged to complain) and on the other hand I am in the perfect position to complain. In general, I’ll try not to simply gripe about the selections made. There are some real stinkers here, but there are more great works, some of them relatively obscure. The Comics Journal’s 100 Greatest English Language Comics list has a better success rate, but it’s also 1/10th the length and by design far more provincial.
  
  The 1001 Comics selections walk a crooked path that takes into account influence and innovation as well as esthetic merit, which means that “The Flash of Two Worlds” and Three Immigrants Manga rub shoulders with Krazy Kat. Popularity can push an otherwise unlikely choice onto the list, and this is especially noticeable with manga, as whatever the bestselling manga in America for any given year (Bleach, Fruits Basket, One Piece, Dragonball, Yu Gi Oh, Attack on Titan, Sailor Moon) is guaranteed inclusion. I’m not saying none of these should make the cut, but I don’t think they were chosen by the same criteria that picked Ghost World or 100 Demons. Then again, neither was Garfield. But it sure was a hit!
  
  I didn’t notice any editorial statement making this explicit, but the book focuses on a McCloudian / “sequential art” definition of comics, leaving no room for Charles Addams, VIP, H.T. Webster, or Gary Larson (although Clare Briggs squeaks in, somehow—presumably a blunder, although several other edge cases, including H.M. Bateman, Sempé, and Hank Ketchum, also make the cut with a blushing acknowledgment that perhaps the majority of their output is not sequential).
  
  It seems perverse to include five separate Tintin volumes while major talents such as Milt Gross and Basil Wolverton are limited to one entry each (and not, in either case, the work I would have chosen as representative). Are the other nineteen Tintin volumes inferior to The Fox and the Crow? If not, why are they not all included, bumping F&C and other lesser works? Orrrrrr: Maybe you could have just called the thing The Adventures of Tintin and freed up some other slots? And that goes double for the four Carl Barks Duck selections. There are at least a dozen Duck stories by Barks that are better than 95% of the entries in this book, and whittling them down to four is simply arbitrary. Just write Barks: Ducks and call it a day. Same for Asterix, Blake & Mortimer, etc.
  
  I would have picked different selections by Lynda Barry, Kiyohiko Azuma, Usamaru Furuya, Cathy Malkasian, Junko Mizumo, Dash Shaw, Nicholas Mahler, Gipi, and Daniel Clowes (and I feel very strongly about some of these!). I might not have thought to argue that Wolfman and Perez’s Teen Titans or Simonson’s Thor belonged in a book of art comics, but there’s enough superhero fare included (that both are clearly superior to) that their omission rankles. In addition to these quibbles, I would have certainly included:
  
  Wormy by Dave Trampier
  Nexus by Baron & Rude
  Dork by Evan Dorkin
  Scarygoround by John Allison
  Smile by Raina Telgemeier
  Snake & Bacon by Paul Kupperman
  Snaketales by Sols
  Ranma ½ by Rumiko Takahashi
  Sagebrush by John Severin
  Lio by Mark Tatulli
  Thirteen by John Stanley
  Magic Whistle by Sam Henderson
  Marbles in My Underpants by Renee French
  Sugar Buzz by Carney & Phoenix
  Oddville by Jay Stevens
  Mad Night by Richard Sala
  Yeah! by Bagge and Hernandez
  Mother, Come Home by Paul Hornschemeier
  The Mourning Star by Kazimir Strzepek
  Astronaut Academy by Dave Roman
  Foxtrot by Bill Amend
  
  There’s plenty I’d remove to make room! Maybe these 1001 comics could use a little less pornography?
  
  But I know, I know, this is not my list. No one’s going to hit on the exact same 1001 comics as I would have, and I’m aware my grumbling is futile and silly. I’m also aware that making lists of 1001 X You Must X Before You Die is always both difficult and arbitrary…
  
  (and, honestly, not even attempted, as occasional confessions that, e.g., “[Takashi] Nemoto’s work will not appeal to everybody” belie the universal “must” of the series-dictated title)
  
  …but a list of comics is more difficult and arbitrary than most. At least the overwhelming majority of the 1001 Books You Must Read are somewhere between 100 and 600 pages long. Meanwhile, in comic land, “Master Race” is eight pages long, while the ongoing adventures of Archie are hundreds of thousands of pages long. Comparing the two works is, at the very least, weird.
  
  (For that matter, exactly what percentage of Archie “must” you read”? I understand that the book may compel you to read A Contract with God front to back, but there are any number of entries here—Peanuts or Frontline Combat—that I would say I’ve read without necessarily asserting I’ve read all of.)
  
  So it’s a tough job, and this book gets points for achieving what it set out to do, including a wide variety or Eurocomics, manga, and comics from all over the world. In addition, the century-plus gamut of comics is widely represented, with the modern era favored, perhaps, but not unjustly so. This is all well done. And yet.
  
  And yet I found the book deeply flawed, for reasons I’ll try to explain at some length.
  
  Let me start with something that is more an oddity than a flaw. The artist for Batman (I noticed) is listed as “Bob Kane” in scare quotes, and I initially took this to be an arch way to mock Kane for his tendency to lean on the work of others; turns out that scare quotes are the editor’s way to indicate a pseudonym. Al Capp doesn’t get quotes because he eventually changed his name legally; “Frank Frazetta” does because apparently Frank is not a sufficiently legitimate nickname for Alfonzo. There is little suggestion that Kane may not have been as involved in Batman’s creation as he alleged. In general, this book is extremely cautious about tussles over creation. “MLJ Comics founder John L. Goldwater is credited with creating the characters” runs a typically lawyerly sentence. Jules Feiffer gets zero mentions under The Spirit.
  
  Oddly enough, the Felix the Cat entry boldly sets the record straight and gives full marks to Otto Mesmer. By itself, this is merely a small inconsistency. But this kind of inconsistency is an ongoing problem for the book.
  
  Take the matter of dating. The early-’seventies story “Good-Bye” is listed under 2002 (when the story was reprinted in English for the second time (I guess they want to talk about the whole 2002 collection?)), and Nancy under 1938 (when the sixteen-year-old strip she had been appearing in for five years finally changed its name). The 1919 strip Thimble Theater, meanwhile, is listed under Popeye the Sailor and dated 1929, from the first appearance of that character (and not when the strip changed names—which event is, of course, long after the Segar heyday).
  
  Maybe it would be impossible to come up with a series of hard-and-fast dating strictures that apply globally, but certainly an editorial eyebrow should have been raised by the fact that Captain Marvel Jr. is listed as the series-in-its-entirety (1941) and Captain Marvel is listed only under the “Monster Society of Evil” serial (1943)—putting the spin-off in front of the original series!
  
  In general, I think this book would have profited from a standard (as in included in the stat block next to genre and influenced by) description of where the work appeared—in magazines, comic books, newspapers, etc.—and, for many of them, when they ended. Frazetta’s White Indian started in 1949 and ran until…? Well, you can go look the answer up in some other book. The entry for The Amazing Spider-Man dutifully lists the authors as Stan Lee and Steve Ditko without any indication of how long this pairing remains intact. (38 issues, as it turns out, but you won’t learn that here.) Are those 38 issues the only ones “you must read before you die”? Someone doesn’t like John Romita? An entry about Ditko’s Warren stories is headed “Creepy and Eerie,” and I thought it was going to be about the many fine pieces within the pages of Creepy and Eerie, but, no, it’s never stated but everywhere insinuated that it’s just Ditko’s pieces you must read before you die. I’d have prioritized Wally Wood’s contributions, which is, fine, fine, that’s a matter of opinion. There are other Warren stories elsewhere in the book. But it’s just hard to scan a table of contents when many entries are only some secret fragment or excerpt from a longer work. Why not call the entry “The Amazing Spider-Man #1–38” if that’s what you mean? The reliance on “official” titles means that all of Mort Drucker’s Mad work gets listed under Mort Drucker’s Mad Show-Stoppers. Other worthy Mad artists, such as Al Jaffe, are excluded, perhaps simply because their career retrospective books are more obscure.
  
  But we’re stuck with the entries the way they are, and we have to figure out how to date them. Cerebus: High Society is dated 1986, It’s a Good Life if You Don’t Weaken 1996, and Magic Mirror 2010. These are the dates when each comic was released in book form, even if it’s several years after the material was serialized in its entirety. Comic strips are generally date of first publication in newspapers. Most “mainstream” comic book entries (Superman, Thor, Spider-Man, Enemy Ace, Bat Lash, Man-Thing) are dated by the first appearance of the character, unless it’s a particular run (Sternanko on Nick Fury, Moore on Swamp Thing) or story (Batman: Strange Apparitions, Daredevil: Born Again). I guess I can live with this…
  
  (but by what issue’s count does The Phoenix Saga start in 1977? First appearance Phoenix is X-Men #101, cover dated October 1976. I’d be happier (perhaps influenced by the paperback collection) starting the Saga at #129, cover date January 1980 (but for the pedants, yes, that does mean it was actually released in 1979). I don’t know what happened in 1977.)
  
  …as I can live with dating manga like Blade of the Immortal for the release of its first (and not final) collection. But absurdities keep cropping up. Roz Chast’s Theories of Everything (a retrospective collection of cartoons from 1978–2006) is dated 1978, the date of the first piece in the collection. If the entry was just “Roz Chast cartoons” or “New Yorker comics by Roz Chast” I wouldn’t bat an eye. But how can a collection appear almost three decades before it even had a title. Ivan Brunetti’s Misery Loves Company, which collects Schizo #1–3 (with some additional material), comes dated 1995, the year Schizo #1 came out but over twenty years before anyone thought of the title Misery Loves Company. Just call the entry Schizo, then, and it will sit nicely in 1995. No mention of the comic book Schizo will you find in this book.
  
  Similarly, 1995’s Beg the Question: the Fantagraphics series Minimum Wage debuted (first as a trade paperback, then as a periodical) in 1995. The series wrapped in 1999, got collected in various volumes, and then Bob Fingerman revised and expanded it and put it out as a hardcover called Beg the Question in 2002. Maybe not all of this history is interesting to the casual reader, but perhaps if Beg the Question was listed in 2002, or if the 1995 entry was called Minimum Wage, no one would need to bother about this history. Minimum Wage does get mentioned as a series in which “Fingerman first introduced [BtQ protagonists] Rob and Sylvia,” but there’s no indication that Beg the Question actually contains the very pages Rob and Sylvia are introduced in. I find this frustrating and confusing!
  
  Even worse, Cromwell Stone is dated 1986, but with a “collection” listed as Révélations Posthumes (1980). I don’t know enough about this comic to untangle what these contradictory years are supposed to mean. The “collection” for Palepoli, meanwhile, we learn is Secret Comics Japan, which is actually an anthology of many pieces (including, of course, Palepoli). Was Palepoli collected in other formats? Does Secret Comics Japan contain the complete Palepoli or just a brief excerpt? When the write-up claims “there are brilliant experimental touches in the book”—is Secret Comics Japan the book referred to? Or some other unmentioned Palepoli collection?
  
  There’s a general sloppiness about the editing of the whole book—boldface formatting spreading beyond its intended domain (see p. 56), “debunked” used to mean “decamped” (see p. 640), Scott Pilgrim volumes presented in alphabetical (as opposed to chronological) order (see p. 822, sidebar), and really a lot of typos (passim). Can you really call Powerhouse Pepper “nonnarrative,” as though it were a Martin Vaughn-James comic? Time and again, sentences are so filled with dangling modifiers, vague abstractions, and malapropisms that the results are either confusing or nonsensical. For example:
  
  “The book [Me & the Devil Blues] opens with harrowing color images from the black-and-white story.”
  
  Or: “While creating British characters at random, soon the focus was on the lives of [etc.]” (From Mrs. Weber’s Diary.)
  
  Or: “Of the three, however, Jodelle was the most esthetic in terms of art”—does that just mean Jodelle is the best drawn?
  
  Or: (Presented as “context” for Jommeke): “Belgium has a population of ten million, only six million of whom are Flemish”—how is “only” the proper term here.
  
  Or: “A severed head floats in the air, but without the humor of Garry Trudeau’s famously imprecise head caricatures.” (From A Single Match.) Do I just know less about Garry Trudeau than I thought I did?]
  
  Or: When an entry claims that “the adventures of U.S. Pilot Buck Danny are virtually unknown beyond the borders of the United States”—surely it should read “within the borders”?
  
  Or: The second sentence of The Spirit entry runs: “Extending stories in the comic book sections of Sunday newspapers seemed a natural progression,” and I don’t know what that sentence means. The Spirit appeared in a comic book section in Sunday newspapers, but most (all?) newspapers did not have comic book sections before The Spirit. Did the writer just mean the comics section, which is to say the comic strip section?
  
  Because this is another confusion that runs throughout the book, a confusion about what is a comic strip and what a comic book. Carol Lay’s comic book Good Girls (in the Now, Endsville entry) and Dick Briefer’s comic book Frankenstein are both referred to (incorrectly) as “strips,” while the comic strip King Aroo gets mentioned as the purview of “comic book devotees.” Oh Wicked Wanda (a short appearing in a magazine) is called a comic book. Brenda Starr (in the Wonder Woman entry) is enumerated an a member of “a generation of groundbreaking comic book superheroines,” which is, perhaps, not technically incorrect, as Starr did front several comic book series (although not till six years after the other examples), but is hardly the best description of comic strip heroine Brenda Starr. (Of course, she’s also not a superheroine.) I believe From Inside is a comic book, but it’s called a strip, and now I just don’t know. Bad People gets called both a strip and an album, and I don’t think it can be both.
  
  On numerous occasions (Babe, Darling of the Hills, The Incredible Hulk, Carmen Cru, Tank Girl, the works of Fletcher Hanks) “strip” is unambiguously to mean a series of comic stories within an anthology comic book, which strikes me as acceptable for Tank Girl and ridiculous for the Hulk, but the use of terminology is so haphazard that after reading 900 pages of it I’m second-guessing myself. I understand that Chester Brown has called his comics work “comic strips” but I thought that was just him showing off his Harold Gray fandom, not laying down a rule on what constitutes a strip. Is this idiomatic somewhere? Someone chose to illustrate the 1919 Barney Google comic strip with an early-’seventies Snuffy Smith comic book, which, sure, is not technically an impossible connection…but doesn’t it seem like some of these contributors don’t know what’s going on?
  
  A 900-page brick like this is going to have some errors. Gene Ha did not illustrate the Smax mini series, for example. The claim that “[Nicolas] Mahler’s humor is always a brilliantly acute combination of words and pictures” sits awkwardly with the fact that Van Helsing’s Night Off, like most of Mahler’s work, is silent. The heroine from Shameless School gets her name spelled wrong more than once (I understand it’s transliterated from Japanese, but I did a quick google search and no one else spells it that way). For that matter, no one else in history has called Attack on Titan “Attack of the Titans”
  
  The River of Stories is hailed as “India’s first graphic novel,” and Corridor (mentioned in the Harappa Files entry) as “India’s first commercial graphic novel,” and although I know next to nothing about Indian comics, I am certain neither of these statements can possibly be true, as ACK has been putting out graphic-novels since at least the 1970s.
  
  This book would have us believe that Joe Brainard’s C Comics was “influenced by The Nancy Book”—a book by Joe Brainard that was released 44 years after C Comics. Clearly this is supposed to be Bushmiller’s Nancy.
  
  I do understand these errors. Someone can be well versed in Top Ten and still not have revisited the Smax mini in years. It’s easy to forget that Zander Cannon drew Smax. Perhaps it’s less easy to forget that Cannon also finished Ha’s pencils on Top Ten, but these things happen. I’m sure I’ve made a handful of mistakes even in this review. But one slip in 1001 Comics did make me really question things.
  
  (This review, which exceeds Goodreads' character limit by quite a bit, is continued here:
  https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...)
• 
  Bryson Kopf

  As a librarian, I approached this book mainly as a collection development tool and in that mindset, this book is solid. The entries are encyclopedic, encompassing a selection of works from all over the world, and over a vast period of time reaching back into the 19th century! Each entry is well written containing alternative titles (titles in the original language), occasional read-a-likes, creator, publisher, and a blurb on basic plot and impact on the form.
  
  Now some of the weakness of the book (as selection tool)is the entries really do not go into detail on how certain titles are in print. To make things even more confusing, sometimes individual tales or short stories are cited rather than a standalone issue or book. Many times it is very hard to tell if a story is even printed in a book at all; many titles are newspaper strips, which can have very eclectic publishing history. This book can also be frustrating in its entries for long running series, particularly for the superhero titles that are cited, which little context to names of specific story arcs, collections or just general places to start. I'm also not crazy about organizing the book by publication date, as it makes it a little trickier to skim through the book to find interesting titles. Even though it had its flaws too, I liked how Gene Kannenberg, Jr's 500 Essential Graphic Novels sorted titles by genre, which at least helped with the flow and organization of the book. I know genre-fying titles is tricky and clumsy, but I still liked this better than the decision here.
  
  Overall, I would not hesitate to recommend this volume to folks trying to get their head around the format. It is especially strong in its selection of international titles, and the sheer volume of content it covers is impressive. Just expect to do more leg work if you are using this as a selection tool.
• 
  Hal Johnson

  (This is part II of a lengthy review; it will make no sense on its own. Please start with part I here:
  https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... )
  
  The entry for Palomar lists it as appearing first in 1982; it actually first appears in 1983. I would write this off as a simple off-by-one error…except that clearly someone just looked up the date of publication of Love & Rockets (Fantagraphics series vol. 1) #1 and used that. Palomar doesn’t appear until Love & Rockets #3, and this is, frankly, not an obscure fact to anyone knowledgable about ’80s b&w comics. This really looks like a bluff.
  
  And maybe not all of the entries sound like they’re written by someone deeply invested in the subject, as opposed to a freelancer with wikipedia access. Are these really experts? Who, having actually read Castle Waiting, would ever want to compare it to Conan?
  
  Comparing comics to other media is not necessarily bad, although when an Ex Machina entry can’t get two words in without invoking The West Wing, sure, my eyes are rolling. There are too many movie comparisons, and far far far too many comparisons to Quentin Tarantino. Obviously every gratuitous, Wizard-friendly mention that a comic had been optioned, or is being made into a “hit film,” is just comics’ age-old self-loathing rearing its head. Nowhere is that self-loathing more evident than in the moment when Box Office Poison is praised for its “sitcomlike precision and sophistication.” Ladies and gentlemen, sitcomlike sophistication!
  
  (What’s especially galling is that that’s not even a bad description of Box Office Poison!)
  
  But by far the biggest blunder in this book is the lack of art. Every single entry should be accompanied by even one small panel. I realize that there are space considerations, but each entry is generally too short to be really interesting, and expanding them into actual essays is not an option—so make ’em shorter! Remove a paragraph from each write-up to make room. I’m not saying a picture’s always worth a thousand words, but an idea of what a comic’s art style looks like is worth more than a hundred. Too many selections have no art at all, when there’s no better way to learn about a comic than just a glance at what it looks like. Is the art big foot cartoony? painterly? outside arty? photorealistic? Two thirds of what you need to know about Beetle Bailey, or From Hell, or Hate, or Johnny the Homicidal Maniac, you can learn from a well-chosen panel.
  
  Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, when a comic does come with an illustration, that illustration is the cover. This is perhaps not always a ridiculous choice, but it’s usually a poor one. And those times when it is a ridiculous choice! When a cover is by a different artist or in a different style (Y The Last Man, Preacher) than the comic itself. When a cover contains little or no art (Beg the Question, the especially egregious Clumsy). When the cover in question is an obscure Charlton adaptation of a comic strip—Barney Google (referenced above) is not the only strip to get this treatment!
  
  The entry for “Demon in a Bottle” claims that “the opening page is one of the most subtly disorienting images in mainstream superhero comics”—and yet the image provided is the cover of Iron Man #128. What a tease!
  
  I know there are rights to bargain with and everything, but a single comics panel, even more than a book cover, is clearly fair use in a book of criticism. And it’s a better choice. Why leave this out? What depths of despair did the editors succumb to when they scanned the nearly-blank cover of Jeffrey Brown’s Clumsy?
  
  As lng as I’m mentioning things I think should be added…there are two pieces of information I very much missed, and which could have been included for each selection by policy (as opposed to appearing scattershot). One is a clarification of what each comic is. I mean Peanuts is a long running newspaper strip. Tintin is a series of comic albums, each one containing a book-length story. Archie is more or less just a franchise, a sprawling multi-decade series of stories and gag pages spread out over dozens of titles with interlocking characters. Like a Velvet Glove Cast in Iron is a self-contained story that was serialized in the periodical Eightball. All of these are easy because I picked famous comics, but it’s not always clear what is a story with a planned ending, what is an endless series of unconnected events, and what is an experimental deconstruction of the concept of narrative.
  
  There’s also the question of how to acquire and read these book. Every entry has a “first published” bullet, but this is only intermittently helpful. Groo the Wanderer was “first published by Eclipse Comics,” which is true…but that was four pages in Destroyer Duck #1. Then Groo had a run at Pacific Comics, one issue back at Eclipse, a very long run at Epic, and then a series of minis from Dark Horse. All that really matters, though, for someone who’s Groo-curious, is that Dark Horse has put out a generous collection of trades.
  
  Is a title translated into English? Is it (recently) in print? It may be obvious to the average American comics reader that Peanuts is available used in any number of cheap mass markets and also in prestige hardcovers from Fantagraphics…but there are any number of Franco-Belgian comics I wish I knew that much about.
  
  So yes, this volume drove me insane and often made me angry and could have been done better. But it’s also one heck of a set of recommendations.
• 
  Tamahome

  
  I can't really claim to have 'read' all 960 pages, but it seems like a very good reference. I don't know how you can buy a lot of these older comics.
  
• 
  Michelle Nogales

  This book is *terrible*! It is making me want to read obscure comic books that I'm sure I'll never be able to find!! Help!!!
• 
  Kenny

  Waiting for the new edition. Otherwise! It's a good starting point with lots of surprises and bon mots.
• 
  Fugo Feedback

  Algo me dice que no voy a estar muy de acuerdo que digamos con esta selección, y ya encontré varios errores en las reseñas que leí de los cómics que llevo leídos. De todos modos, lo marco tomo "to-read" al menos para ver qué porcentaje de los 1001 comics imprescindibles tengo leídos o me interesa leer.
  
  Por ahora, ya leí:
  -20th Century Boys (los primeros tomos).
  -30 días de noche (la primera serie).
  -300.
  -5, el número perfecto.
  
  -Agente secreto X-9 (en la biblioteca Clarín, creo).
  -Agujero negro.
  -Akira (me faltan los últimos tomos).
  -All Star Superman.
  -American Splendor (un tomo).
  -Archivos de Elfquest (un tomo).
  -El asco (los primeros números).
  -Asterios Polyp.
  -Asterix en Bretaña.
  -Asterix en Córcega.
  -Asterix gladiador.
  -Asterix y los Juegos Olímpicos.
  -Astonishing X-Men.
  -Astro City: Vida en la gran ciudad (y los que le siguen).
  -Astroboy (los primeros tomos).
  -The Authority.
  -Las aventuras de Hergé.
  -Las aventuras de Tintín: El secreto del unicornio.
  -Las aventuras de Tintín: Las joyas de la Castafiore.
  -Las aventuras de Tintín: Las siete bolas de cristal.
  -Las aventuras de Tintín: Tintín en el Tíbet.
  
  -La Balada de Halo Jones.
  -Bardín el superrealista.
  -Barrio lejano.
  -Batman: Año uno.
  -Batman: Arkham Asylum.
  -Batman: La broma asesina.
  -Batman: El regreso del Caballero Oscuro.
  -Batman: El contraataque del Caballero Oscuro (que no entiendo por qué fue elegido).
  -Batman: de Kane y Finger (que tampoco entiendo por qué está).
  -Berserk (los primeros 10 tomos, creo).
  -Beto el recluta (esporádicamente en el Diario El Día).
  -¡Bienvenido a Seattle, Buddy! (lo que salió en Argentina de Hate).
  -Black Jack (los primeros tomos).
  -Blacksad.
  -Blake y Mortimer: El misterio de la Gran Pirámide (el primer tomo por ahora).
  -Blankets.
  -Bleach (los primeros 21 tomos).
  -Unas bollos de cuidado (poquito).
  -Bone (los primeros 3 tomos).
  -The Boys (los primeros 8 tomos).
  -Brooklyn Dreams.
  -El Bruto (los primeros 3 tomos, creo).
  
  -Calvin y Hobbes (muy poco).
  -Camino a la Perdición.
  -Capitán América de Simon y Kirby (muy poco).
  -Capitán Marvel: La monstruosa Sociedad del Mal.
  -Capitán Tsubasa (el primer tomo).
  -Maison Ikkoku (el primer tomo).
  -Cat Shit One (3 ó 4 tomos, y me aburrió).
  -Cerebus: Alta sociedad.
  -Chino americano.
  -Cinema Panopticum.
  -Clásicos DC: Batman (algunas sagas).
  -El Clic (no me gustó).
  -Los combates cotidianos (me falta el último).
  -Condorito (varios números).
  -Contrato con Dios.
  -Corto Maltés: La balada del Mar Salado.
  -La Cosa del Pantano.
  -Cuando el viento sopla.
  -Los 4 Fantásticos de Lee y Kirby (algunos números).
  -Daredevil: Born Again.
  -Daredevil de Bendis y Maleev (algunos números).
  -XIII: El día del sol negro.
  -Dick Tracy (algo).
  -Dr. Extraño de Lee y Ditko (algo).
  -Dragon Ball.
  
  -Edén.
  -Enigma.
  -Entender el cómic.
  -La espada del inmortal (primeros tomos).
  -El Eternauta.
  -Ex Machina (la mitad más o menos).
  -Jojo's Bizarre Adventure (voy 42 de los 108 tomos que son :P).
  
  -Fábulas (los primeros 5 tomos, creo).
  -Fantomas: la amenaza elegante (el único tomo que conseguí).
  -Flash: El flash de dos mundos.
  -Flash Gordon (algo).
  -Fueye.
  -FullMetal Alchemist.
  -Fun Home (me lo tengo que terminar).
  
  -Garfield (varios tomitos).
  -El gato del rabino (4 tomos).
  -Krazy kat (me lo tengo que terminar).
  -Ghost World.
  -Give me Liberty.
  -Golgo 13 (algunas historias).
  -Goodbye.
  -Great Teacher Onizuka (el primer tomo).
  -Green Lantern / Green Arrow.
  -Gus (el primer tomo).
  -El gusto del cloro.
  
  -Habibi.
  -Hellblazer (varios tomos).
  -Hellboy: semilla de destrucción.
  -Una historia violenta.
  
  -El Incal (me falta el final).
  -El Increíble Hulk de Lee y Kirby (varios números).
  -Invencible (la primera saga).
  -Los Invisibles (algunos números).
  
  -Jacarandá (tampoco entiendo por qué está acá).
  -Jimmy Corrigan (lo arranqué).
  
  -Kick-Ass.
  -Kingdom Come.
  
  -Largo Wynch: El heredero y El Grupo W.
  -Los Libros de la Magia.
  -Liga de la Justicia Internacional (varios números).
  -Liga de Hombres Extraordinarios (lo arranqué).
  -Lobezno: Arma X.
  -Lost Girls (lo arranqué).
  
  -Macanudo (del 1 al 9, creo).
  -Madman (algunos números).
  -Mandrake el mago (algo).
  -Marvelman (casi todo).
  -Marvels (creo que me falta un capítulo).
  -Maus.
  -The Maxx.
  -Mazinger Z (el primer tomo).
  -Mi pequeño.
  -Mickey Mouse (algo).
  -Mis problemas con las mujeres.
  -Mónica y sus amigos (algo, cuando era chiquito).
  -Monster (los primeros tomos).
  -Mort Cinder (no sé si completo).
  -Mortadelo y Filemón (algunos).
  -MouseGuard: Otoño 1152.
  -La Muerte de Superman.
  -Walking Dead (algo).
  -La muñequita de papá (¡¿Qué hace acá?!).
  -Mushi-shi (los primeros tomos).
  
  -Nana (hasta el 4).
  -Naruto (hasta el cincuenta y pico).
  -Necrón (algo)
  -Neon Génesis Evangelion.
  -Nick Fury, agente de SHIELD (algo).
  -No Comment.
  -Nunca me has gustado.
  
  -Olafo el vikingo (en el diario El Día).
  -Omega el desconocido (un embole).
  -One Piece (5 ó 6 tomos).
  -Orange.
  
  -Pagando por ello.
  -Paracuellos.
  -Patoruzú (varios).
  -Little Nemo in Slumberland (algo).
  -Persépolis.
  -Planetary.
  -Popeye el Marino (algo).
  -Powers: ¿Quién mató a Retro Girl?
  -Predicador.
  -Promethea.
  
  -Quotidianía delirante (algo).
  
  -Rip Kirby (algo).
  -Rocketeer (algo).
  -Rogan Gosh (lo arranqué).
  
  -Sailor Moon (tomos 1 y 2).
  -The Sandman.
  -Sargento Kirk (algo).
  -Scott Pilgrim.
  -Shade el hombre cambiante (primera saga).
  -Sin City (varios).
  -Sky Doll (los primeros).
  -Sky Masters (algo).
  -Snoopy y Carlitos (algo).
  -Spiderman de Lee y Ditko (algo).
  -Spiderman: La noche que murió Gwen Stacy (algo).
  -The Spirit (algo).
  -Starman (algo).
  -Stuck Rubber Baby: Mundos diferentes.
  -Superman de Siegel y Shuster.
  -Superman: Las cuatro estaciones.
  
  -Tank Girl (algo).
  -Tarzán de Foster (algo).
  -Tekkon Kinkreet (no lo terminé aún).
  -Teniente Blueberry: la mina del alemán (algo).
  -Thor de Lee y Kirby (algo).
  -Thorgal: la maga traicionada (no lo terminé aún).
  -Titeuf (primer tomo).
  -Toda Mafalda.
  -Top 10.
  -La trágica comedia o cómica tragedia de Mr. Punch.
  -Transmetropolitan (el principio).
  -Trilogía de Nikopol (el primero, creo).
  
  -Los Ultimates.
  -Umbrella Academy.
  -Umpa-pá (algo).
  
  -V de Vendetta.
  -Vagabond (veintipico de tomos).
  -Valentina (un tomo).
  -Los Vengadores (varios números).
  -La vida en el infierno (algo).
  -Watchmen.
  -Sofía y el negro.
  
  -We3.
  -Wonder Woman (algo).
  
  -X-Men de Thomas y Adams (algo).
  -X-Men: la saga de Fénix Oscura.
  -xxxHolic (los primeros 5, creo).
  
  -Y, el último hombre.
  -Yoko Tsuno (algo).
  -¡Yotsuba! (los primeros).
  
  -Zenith.
  -Zot! (algo).
  
  Supongo que iré actualizando mientras los vaya leyendo.
• 
  Clint

  I intermittently read this in chronological order over a 6 month timespan and loved the brief hooks it offered for titles covering a huge breadth of styles in its doorstopper width: mainstream US comics of all sorts, Japanese manga, Korean manhwa, Franco-Belgian bandes-dessines/“BD” (which I’d recognized as a distinctly European style before but didn’t know had a name/equally long parallel tradition to US comics), and tons of smaller indie comics from all over the world (though admittedly US-centric). I’d guess single-book graphic novels account for a slight majority of the entries, but there’s also a ton of long-running series covered in each of the above categories.
  
  It begins as early as 1830 and stops at the 2011 publish date, with more extensive coverage closer to the current day. Everything pre-1930 is covered in a brief 50 page section and then it swaps to 20 year periods (1930-50, 50-70, 70-90) that each get slightly more pages than the previous one, before giving the 90s and 00s each as many pages as the previous two decade periods.
  
  With such a wide scope, it’s likely to frustrate anyone more narrowly interested in just one of the above categories, but I loved that the 10s of contributing writers weren’t limited to any strict POV and introduced me to a ton of interesting sounding comics I want to read, in addition to the satisfying feeling of seeing a lot of comics I already knew I loved or wanted to read. My only real complaint was I wish each entry offered at least one small image (its a visual medium after all!) instead of maybe 1/3 of them getting much larger images, but I imagine logistical/licensing difficulties prevented that more than intent did.
• 
  Uuttu

  Kirja on mielenkiintoinen ja sisältää kattavan valikoiman erilaisia sarjakuvia. Mukana on paljon yleisiä, tunnettuja teoksia, mutta myös huomattava määrä tuntemattomampia. Kirjasta on kuitenkin jätetty pois myös olennaisia teoksia, mutta se lienee näiden listausten ikuinen ongelma: kaikkia ei voi miellyttää.
  
  Kirjan taittojälki on hyvää, mutta koen kuvituksen ongelmalliseksi: läheskään kaikista sarjakuvista ei ole kuvia. Vastaavissa kirja- tai CD-kokoelmissa kuvien puuttumisen ymmärtää, mutta tässä se jäi häiritsemään.
  
  Koin itse myöskin ongelmaksi pitkien sarjojen mukana olemisen. On luonnollista, että Ryhmä-X, Doctor Doom, Ihmeneloset ja Batman ovat mukana, mutta näistä sarjakuvista olisi hyvä tietää, *mitä* kannattaa lukea. Batman onkin listalla paitsi itsenäisenä sarjanaan myös useina yksittäisinä tarinoina, Ryhmä-X:stä on erikseen nostettu esiin Feeniks-saaga. Eikö näiden kohdalla olisi ollut fiksumpaa vain laittaa sarjaksi Batman ja suositella sitten tarinakokonaisuuksia, joihin kannattaa tutustua?
• 
  Cristian Marucci

  Más allá de que hay omisiones importantes, es un excelente libro para repasar y conocer la historia de los comics, sobre todo lo que sale del mainstream DC / Marvel. Hay muchas obras que permiten conocer historias desconocidas vividas por sus autorxs (por ejemplo: "la muñequita de papá" de Debbie Dreschsler, "7 millas por segundo" de David Wojnarowich o "en la prisión" de Hanawa). Muy recomendable como guía de lectura y como material de consulta, incluso para aquellas personas que sean nuevas en el género.
• 
  Herman Schmitz

  Muito útil para o historiador de quadrinhos. Diferente das outras coletâneas sobre quadrinhos, esta não parte dos desenhistas, mas sim, é focada nos personagens e nas melhores histórias das séries. Um livro para consultar sempre que em dúvida.
• 
  Al Capwned

  The dominance of some creators and countries are obvious but still, it's a good guide but not the ultimate guide to comic books.
• 
  Pascal

  Tres bon livre de référence sur les BDs, Mangas, comics...la référence quand on veut lire et découvrir de nouveaux auteurs, ou bien lire et relire les classiques...
• 
  Am Y

  This is more a compendium of famous or ground-breaking comics through the ages, than it is a "must-read" list.
  
  I thought only English-language comics would be showcased, but there are foreign language comics from Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico, Brazil, Italy, France, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Poland, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Czech Republic, former Yugoslavia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, Australia and several African countries as well... but absolutely nothing from China. This is particularly mind-boggling as even comics from some very obscure and less culturally/historically-rich countries are featured.
  
  It is disappointing and puzzling that "Old Master Q" (老夫子 [Lao Fu Zi]) by Alfonso Wong (王家禧) did not even warrant a mention. This is possibly the most famous (and humorous) Chinese comic ever (as any Chinese person above the age of 30 can tell you), and most of the time, it does not even require a knowledge of the Chinese language to read it, as most panels are wordless.
  
  Instead, we get multiple entries (for different issues) of stuff like "Batman", "Asterix", "Tintin", "Spiderman" and so on.
• 
  George Marshall

  Comic compilations tend to be rather sectarian - either disregarding the experimental and introspective end, or completely ignoring the superhero mainstream (sometimes with an apology that comics are much more than just men in tights). But this book gets it just right- it recognises all genres as contributing to the overall art form and pulls out the exceptional examples across the field. It also has an appropriately global perspective with entries from all cultures- though I fear that many of them will be impossible to obtain in translation.
  My only gripe is that the illustrations are almost all of covers- the least informative part of any comic- when there was no reason why there could not have been pages or panels. Comics are not like other books- you really can't tell any comic by its cover.
  So an excellent guide to comics- it's intelligent and well written,
  
  
• 
  Harris

  While I did not get to study this book as long as I would have wished, I would have to say that this was among my favorite of the 1001 blah blah blah series so far. As I flipped through it, I noted a variety of interesting titles I had not heard of, some favorites, as well as a few I might find a bit questionable (which is, I feel, part of the appeal of the series). I mean, the Wizard of Id and Hagar the Horrible, but no Far Side? What gives? This being said, I was impressed by the extensive genres of comics represented, from the mid 1800s all the way to 2011 and from every continent (save Antarctica, of course).
• 
  Chris Tinniswood

  This is no mere 'favourite comics I've read' book. This is both an all-encompassing history of the medium and a knowledgable tome to refer to when you're looking for a new challenge.
  Full of interesting anecdotes about the artists and writers, and also the countries they have hailed from and their attitude to this much-maligned medium that is only now, after over 100 years of existence, (if you discount cave paintings and the bayeux tapestry!) coming into its own.
  Well worth a read for enthusiasts, and a must-read for those new to this literary artform.
• 
  Adam

  Massive book detailing, yes, 1001 comic books starting with Rudolph Töpffer's The Adventures of Mr. Obadiah Oldbuck and going right up to Craig Thompson's
  Habibi, published in 2011. Running in chronological order (but with useful indexes at front and back), the book gives on average a page to each title. Well-researched, extensive and clearly affectionate - this thing is a joy.
• 
  J. Christopher

  Personally, I enjoyed looking through this for ideas on what to read. It is probably different from my top 1000 but that is to be expected. Btw, Alan Moore did do some great comics as did several non-american/indie creators. I enjoy mainstream comic but maybe 1/10 is really well written and drawn. It is what the title says. If you want yo find comics/ graphic novels you may not have heard of from the last 50+ years check it out at your local library.
• 
  Bob

  I'm surprised by how many I had read, and the wealth of unknown ones is helpful too. Would have hoped for a bit more visuals, but then it probably would have spread over two volumes. Lots of omissions to quibble about (no George Metzger? no P. Craig Russell?) but that's what it's all about I'm sure.
• 
  bakanekonomama

  Bukunya cukup oke karena ada manga-manga favorit saya di dalamnya, seperti One Piece, Furuba, dan 20th Century Boys.
  
  Karena saya nggak ada niat untuk baca sampai habis buku yang tebelnya kayak bantal dan tebelnya kayak Ensiklopedia itu, maka saya cukupkan sampai di sini saja review saya.
  
  Sekian.
• 
  Ty Keith

  This was an entertaining and enlightening read. My only problem was that the books that intrigued me, but I had not read were generally now not of print. Any sellers of these books on eBay also thought highly enough of these books that they priced in the 100 dollar neighborhood. No, digital does not seem to be a viable option for acquiring these books either.