Is The Walking Dead the best comic series of the decade?

[evaD]

I don't know if I have anything to add except to say I think it's been a heck of a run of good comics since 2000. When you look back over the past dozen years, think about all the great books and then think about the drop in readership...  Well, you can't say the creators haven't been trying their hardest to put out worthwhile stuff and expand the market.

[JimN]

Picking THE best comic series of any decade seems like a somewhat futile excercise. That said, to me personally, The Walking Dead wouldn't even come close  :whaat

I agree that it's a futile exercise. It comes down to personal preferences and there are just too many contenders to name one the winner.

I think Walking Dead can make as much of a claim to the title as anything else that's come out in the past 10 years. I couldn't disagree with Rick more about the art. I think it's very strong, not bland at all and I wouldn't say the series is without direction either. It's ridiculous to say it's not about plot, character or story. It has all 3 in spades.

I think to some extent familiarity breeds contempt and Walking Dead is a victim of it's own success. If people follow any ongoing story long enough there's a tendency for them to eventually grow tired, jaded or bored. It doesn't happen to everybody but it happens and it's almost inevitable.

[Kenney]

It's ridiculous to say it's not about plot, character or story. It has all 3 in spades.

Yeah, I can't say I get that criticism either. I definitely wouldn't say it was the best comic in the last 10 years, because I don't have to think hard before I can find examples of books that I feel were more finely crafted (Y The Last Man, Fables, and 100 Bullets intermediately jump to mind for other long running series), but I do think WD is one of the high water marks of the last decade. It might not be the best comic straight up, but it's in the conversation, and for the first 50 issues or so everyone was on the book's tip.

[JimN]

Yeah, I can't say I get that criticism either. I definitely wouldn't say it was the best comic in the last 10 years, because I don't have to think hard before I can find examples of books that I feel were more finely crafted (Y The Last Man, Fables, and 100 Bullets intermediately jump to mind for other long running series), but I do think WD is one of the high water marks of the last decade. It might not be the best comic straight up, but it's in the conversation, and for the first 50 issues or so everyone was on the book's tip.

It makes me wonder: if the series had ended like Y and 100 Bullets did, would people be viewing it much more generously now?

I actually find it interesting that several people have mentioned Y: The Last Man as a superior series to TWD. I actually prefer Walking Dead, although I like them both.

I'm re-reading 100 Bullets right now. I bailed on it around issue #60 the first time around. I'm 19 issues into re-reading it and I love it but I loved it at this point the first time around too. I've picked up a few of the trades that came after that #60 so I think I have about 80 issues of the series. I'm going to read 'em all and if I'm engrossed enough in the story to want the rest at that point, I'll pick up the last few trades. Actually, if I can find those trades cheaply at C2E2, I'll get them next weekend.

I think Criminal is another series in the mix for best of the past decade. It would certainly be in my top 5.

[Jon O]

I haven't read any of these other comic series that are being brought up in the discussion.

I'm thinking I need to pick up that second trade of Y the Last Man.

My personal leanings make me want to go with something like American Elf or Promethea, but that's all based on taste and nothing quantifiable. Usagi Yojimbo also continued it's brilliance straight through this decade and never blinked.

[bean6344]

I'm re-reading 100 Bullets right now. I bailed on it around issue #60 the first time around. I'm 19 issues into re-reading it and I love it but I loved it at this point the first time around too. I've picked up a few of the trades that came after that #60 so I think I have about 80 issues of the series. I'm going to read 'em all and if I'm engrossed enough in the story to want the rest at that point, I'll pick up the last few trades. Actually, if I can find those trades cheaply at C2E2, I'll get them next weekend.

That is almost my same experience.    It reads so much better if you can try and tackle it in one extended sitting.   I picked up all of the trades used at half price or less and do not regret double dipping on 80% of the series.   There were too many undercurrents and plot threads spread over the 100 issues for me to keep up with them over the originl monthly run.  It is a series that I am sure I will once again reread it sooner than later.
Bean

[Kenney]

No there is definitely something to a series ending, but also to a series that is finite and has clear beats that it wants to hit like Y did. Take Fables for example. I don't think I would view that series as high as I do if I didn't stop at issue 75. I've heard Wood say that after the post first major arc lull it has gotten better, but part of the reason why I hold Fables is such high esteem is that once that series started rolling, it just kept picking up steam, constantly raising the stakes, while not sacrificing the great character moments that drew me in from the offset. But also because I stopped.

Even when a book is excellent, it's hard for an artist to maintain that excellence over a long period of time. And I do think WD was excellent at what it was striving to achieve. Not only that, but we also get used to the tricks, styles, and motifs of a creator the more we see of it. So the shocking moments in WD aren't really shocking anymore, because we're already braced for them.

Regarding 100 Bullets. I'm still in the midst of reading it myself, and I do find that the first half of the series is much more captivating to me than the back half. I like when it focused on the stories of people who were given the gun, and the implications that had on their lives, not so much the far reaching conspiracy stuff with the Trust and Minutemen that has become the focus at the point I'm at in my reading. It's still quality, but just a bit less so for my tastes.

[RickV]

I think Walking Dead can make as much of a claim to the title as anything else that's come out in the past 10 years. I couldn't disagree with Rick more about the art. I think it's very strong, not bland at all and I wouldn't say the series is without direction either. It's ridiculous to say it's not about plot, character or story. It has all 3 in spades.

What I meant is that TWD was begun not with a specific idea for a story or a character but "What would happen after the credits of a zombie movie." To me when the fundamental direction and starting point of a story is just a napkin pitch it has a very hard time to succeed at being great. I will say part of it is that I do enjoy finite stories and Kirkman is a guy who on many occasions has stated he will keep his books going as long as they are profitable to do it. Part of it also has to be personal bias, I rarely like Zombie movies so if the conceit of story is what happens after those (you know the least interesting part) then I am going to be a hard sell from minute one.

Also finally I understand why Superman is always in Superman comics, but in a post apocalyptic world where anything is possible to have the same main character for the number of issues you have done and to have him a) not snap or b) not die is kinda phony to me.

[JimN]

What I meant is that TWD was begun not with a specific idea for a story or a character but "What would happen after the credits of a zombie movie." To me when the fundamental direction and starting point of a story is just a napkin pitch it has a very hard time to succeed at being great.

I don't think it makes any difference at all. Characters and stories rarely, if ever, leap fully-formed into the minds of authors. They are revealed and developed during the writing process so a great story can start from a "napkin pitch" as easily as it can start from an idea for a particular character or event. If you think about it, most stories begin with the question "What if...?". A great story can result from a question as simple as "What if a 9 year old boy ran away from home" or from a question like ""What would happen after the credits of a zombie movie"?  It's all in the execution.

I will say part of it is that I do enjoy finite stories and Kirkman is a guy who on many occasions has stated he will keep his books going as long as they are profitable to do it. Part of it also has to be personal bias, I rarely like Zombie movies so if the conceit of story is what happens after those (you know the least interesting part) then I am going to be a hard sell from minute one.

It sounds like TWD just isn't your thing. That's perfectly legitimate.

Also finally I understand why Superman is always in Superman comics, but in a post apocalyptic world where anything is possible to have the same main character for the number of issues you have done and to have him a) not snap or b) not die is kinda phony to me.

Just out of curiosity: why? That seems like a particularly arbitrary criticism. It's not as if there's a guide that says a character in a post-apocalyptic setting needs to snap or die after a set number of issues. In the TWD, Rick has been changed by his experiences. He hasn't completely snapped but the world he lives in has had a serious impact on him both mentally and physically. He's changed. Why is it phony that he survives without completely losing his mind? Unless you just conclude that everyone is going to die, that eventually killing everyone is the inevitable endgame of a series about a zombie apocalypse, there will be survivors. If the main character is one of those survivors, why is that phony?

[lugaru]

I'll put it this way: No, it is not the best comic of the decade. Also I'm glad to live in a time when Walking Dead is not the best comic of the decade, cuz it's really f'ing good.

[Jon O]

Great response lugaru!

[evaD]

Great response lugaru!

I'll second that!

[bugeyed13]

I'll third that @lugaru well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[legion of daves]

it's really great, that's for sure. but is it the best?  no.

[BadDeacon]

Not the best.

Definitely most successful, like Wood said.

I stopped reading Walking Dead around issue 50, because I felt like the story was just becoming repetitive. Yes, new, horrible things kept happening, but when new and horrible are the status quo, they're not that new.

I feel like Walking Dead is a series with a situation that continuously creates drama and excitement, but isn't really telling any particular story, like Y, or Fables 1-75, or any other of these great series did. It feels like a long, zombie-riffic soap opera to me.

Still, it IS very good. These are just my reasons it's not the *best*.

[Wood]

I would've voted for Fables as the best series of the decade if it ended after the Great War. But it didn't, and when evaluating a series, you have to take in all of its parts.  Walking Dead was the most exciting series, for me, for a number of years. But the last few have felt like I'm biding time, waiting to be surprised and titillated again.

[Julian Lytle]

so when we are talking "comics" we talking only printed american comics I'm guessing right?


P.S.
I think bother Y and 100 bullets ended poorly. For me both had bad last two issues. Lost them some points in my book.

[Planck length]

if we open this up beyond american comics One piece wins by 31 lengths.

[RickV]

Just out of curiosity: why? That seems like a particularly arbitrary criticism. It's not as if there's a guide that says a character in a post-apocalyptic setting needs to snap or die after a set number of issues. In the TWD, Rick has been changed by his experiences. He hasn't completely snapped but the world he lives in has had a serious impact on him both mentally and physically. He's changed. Why is it phony that he survives without completely losing his mind? Unless you just conclude that everyone is going to die, that eventually killing everyone is the inevitable endgame of a series about a zombie apocalypse, there will be survivors. If the main character is one of those survivors, why is that phony?

At a certain point it breaks immersion from the world to me. I don't believe the extent to which this one guy escapes from everything is possible. Especially against the confines of the genre we are working in. In a typical two hour Zombie movie how many of the main cast are left at the end? Multiply 2 hours by how long the book has been going and you begin to see where my brain goes while reading it. Also I don't think Kirkman is a good enough writer to disguise that fact by making the series particularly engrossing.

This thread is actually kinda interesting seeing what people would throw out in this category and realizing that the ones that keep getting mentioned (Y and Fables) both completely fell flat for me as well. 

[JimN]

At a certain point it breaks immersion from the world to me. I don't believe the extent to which this one guy escapes from everything is possible. Especially against the confines of the genre we are working in. In a typical two hour Zombie movie how many of the main cast are left at the end?

I suspect that has as much to do with the limitations of storytelling in a 2 hour film format as it does with the possibilities of survival. Maybe what you should be focusing on is that somebody always remains alive at the end of a zombie film!

This thread is actually kinda interesting seeing what people would throw out in this category and realizing that the ones that keep getting mentioned (Y and Fables) both completely fell flat for me as well. 

It is interesting. Fables didn't do it for me either. I read 4 volumes and was indifferent about reading more. I liked it, I just didn't like it enough to keep going. I read Y in it's entirety and really enjoyed it, although there are definitely series I've liked better in the past decade.