I would be curious to see the rest of that list.
Considering the 20th century had the end of the great romantic period, modernist literature (which is often put forward as the best of all literate periods), post-modernist literature, a small gothic and realist resurgence as well as a much greater exposure to writers outside the main centres than has been seen in the past and so trying to make that list would be ridiculousy subjective. I imagine the 20th century would hold a fair few spots on best literature of all time (Proust, Kafka and Joyce spring to mind).
I looked upt he list and it was a top 100, not a top 10, and for some reason only counted novels post 1923 thus eliminating 1900-1923 which produced a whole lot of novels that would fill up the top of any such list as it was such a ridiculously productive time, and was only English language novels for some bizarre reason. Needless to say, it's a pretty silly list.

But going a bit off topic here so in summary: Watchmen=good, Pinnacle of human achievement=no.

Nique I have no idea what you're trying to say about Alan Moore or Watchmen or whatever, and it certainly isn't helping that you haven't even finished Watchmen and instead are making a judgment based on the trailer and what you have read, calling it 'the concept', then knocking on things that aren't even really the focus of the comic like his self-imposed image or the inter-comic parodies/homages to DC/Marvel.

I'm not even defending the comic, I'm just saying that I have no idea what is so bad about said comic.

Just to weigh in on the Watchmen/Moore debate, I just finished reading my purloined copy and it was pretty good.
It a little preachy at times but I'm totally nit picking.
So I like it and I hate everything. That's totally great praise.

Mirai -

I guess what I'm trying to say is 1) Watchmen seems like a commentary on the genre in part, and I don't care for what those comments seem to be 2)The concept, on the surface, is unnapealing to me (the heroes themselves specifically) and 3) Part of the reason it seems to have certain implications to me, is becuase of Alan Moores reputation.

I've read some of his other stuff - V for Vendetta, The Killing Joke (which I like), and although he is really good, I just don't think he is quite as amazing as people make him out to be. The reason for that is, in my opinion, his sometimes radical behavior, which I belive gives people the impression that he is an artistic genius instead of just a pretty-good writer.

There isn't really some huge point I'm trying to argue or get across. Kind of just submitting my opinion? Sorry if I offended!

Just in response to Nique:

I find Alan Moore's political beliefs rather laughable, I'm not a huge fan of his misintrepretations of objectivism and conservatism (I'm not a huge fan of Ayn Rand, either, but Bioshock more actively captures the real pitfalls of objectivism) and the man himself doesn't seem like the kind of guy I'd want to be best friends with.

I still think Watchmen is the best comic series/graphic novel I've read from the 20th Century.
At one point or another you have to separate the man from his work. I'm pretty sure most of my favorite novels were written by douchebags, with the exceptions of C.S. Lewis and Tolkien, who were just stereotypical English pseudo-antisocial eccentrics.

I think I have to concede based on that age-old saying, 'One man's douche-bag is another man's favoirte writer'... Becuase I'm pretty sure there's some people out there who think Joss Whedon is a douche, but I find him fancinating.

Alan Moore may be a family sized douchebag, and a chore to work with, and clueless about politics, and he might be unable to write characters that aren't transparent plot vessels, and he may or may not be the greatest magician in history, but why would we care about any of that? I think what matters is that he can write comics. He probably understands what comics can do better than James Cameron understands movies or Hideo Kojima videogames. As a comics enthusiast, I read his stuff over and over again and try to figure out how it's done and why it works and I get maybe 10% of it. I don't think he's a valuable storyteller as much as an extraordinarily valuable instructor.

Just throwing it out there.

You know, I'm wondering if Moore and Miller ever did anything togethor? That would be somethin'. I mean just polar opposites...

If by "something" you mean the "put on the glasses" fight in They Live, then yes.



That's because Objectivism is authoritarian and sentimentalist, under a thin veneer of pseudo-anarchism that only ever concerns itself with the freedom of authoritarians to subjugate the weak and helpless, and the freedom of the weak and helpless to be subjugated, all tied off with a definition of "reason" that works out to "I said it so it's reason cause I say so, so there."

As I am continually at pains to point out it is a philosophy ostensibly based on the the dispassionate observation of objective reality whose primary treatises are works of fiction, I can't imagine what more needs to be said.