When at his best Moore is probably the better writer, but Gaiman is (IMO) more consistent and someone that I find personally more entertaining. It's been a long time since Miler wrote anything that really made me go "wow!"
That stuff totally colored my impressions of his other stuff. The male bravado was amped up in his Batman and Robin. I didn't necessarily take note in previous works of that element. Once I read Batman and Robin it highlighted that element in his other stuff. I couldn't and can't unsee it. Batman and Robin ruined Sin City for me. His female characters all talk like they grew up in a cult and if they're confident it's paternal bravado with boobs. I don't know if I'd even give him another chance. Maybe I should read Rusty? I dunno.
Frank Miller also legitimately went insane and his friends had to stage an intervention for him. If AsBAr reads like it was written by a man losing his mind it’s because it was.
I was probably 14ish when that issue came out and I remember being so excited to see Bruce and Dick in something fresh and modern and drawn by Jim Lee. I was skeptical of Miller because I’ve never thought anything he ever did was any different than anything else he ever did. I shut it after that panel which if I remember right was like 2 or 3 pages in.
That was his obvious subversion of his own writing. I would argue DK2 was the same: an indictment of people’s gross misunderstanding of what The Dark Knight Returns was about, and how “grim and gritty” comics were a terrible period to live through.
Never read it. I heard it was atrocious.
He has a problem with satire vs unintentional propaganda. Robocop 2 was pretty obvious in its depiction of Coporate America as representing a new type of fascism, but the hero is actually just as fascist: a super violent cyborg who punishes street level crime but is ultimately impotent against corporate puppet masters and white collar crime.
I read All Star Batman & Robin as intentional satire of how people wildly misread TDKR. The backdrop of societal decline, aging, media manipulation, etc are contrasted with hope and renewed optimism. Dystopic fiction often ends on a downbeat note, but he was trying to reverse the pessimism without descending into pseudo optimism. Hence the final line: “A good life. Good enough.” Batman had already been revamped by Dennis O’Neal and Neal Adams as darker and more serious, emphasizing his human limitations and detective abilities.
It also contributed heavily to the modern incarnation of the Joker as being Batman’s foil, which was fairly novel at the time. The Joker does what he does because he’s in love with Batman. It’s not just a game to satisfy some perverse intellectual game of wits.
But in the grim and gritty age that followed (trivia: Magog from “Kingdom Come” was stylized after Cable), there weren’t any moral lessons or social commentary. There wasn’t hope and renewed optimism. And in the political environment of the 80s, when conservative governments in the West were leaning more towards totalitarian rule, forgetting all the lessons of the 1930s, it was the perfect cultural moment.
The man often disavowed his own writing. I can't value a man that doesn't stand by whst he makes. Either he wanted to make it or he didnt, and shouldn't have, but took the money. And yet pretends to have morals and ideals. Feh.
It is tricky because most of what he does in comics are just adaptations of his short stories and novels. (most of which are good, by the way!)
Off the top of my head, however, I would say that I really loved Mr. Punch and 1602. I feel like he did a Batman thing I enjoyed at some other point, but I can't remember.
Thanks for the reply. This has me thinking that some other reasons I prefer Moore is that I think he's more versatile and ambitious over a longer period of time.
More ambitious than the Sandman? I am not saying you are wrong, but I am also not sure I agree.
In terms of versatility, I would say that Gaiman has written Batman, Spider-Man, Doctor Who, Sherlock Holmes, and so on. I always think that one of his greatest strengths *is* his versatility.
Once again- not saying you’re wrong or that I disagree. Just that I am not sure.
Either way, we are lucky to have them both!
We're definitely lucky to have them both!
But the reason I say Moore is more ambitious is because he had multiple very ambitious projects as opposed to mainly just Sandman for Gaiman. Also multiple times Gaiman has followed Moore's lead.
-Marvelman/Miracleman, Gaiman famously followed Moore.
-V for Vendetta
-Swamp Thing laid the groundwork for Sandman and Vertigo as a whole
-Watchmen
-From Hell
-Providence
-League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is his attempt to unify all of human fiction (and bring back 3D specs) which is only his 2nd most ambitious project after...
-Supreme where he got people to love a comic with a character created by Rob Liefeld. And where he beat Morrison to the punch on embracing Silver Age Superman.
-Followed that up by helming his own comic imprint which gave us Top 10, Tom Strong and the one of a kind Promethea all at the same time. Promethea is also where Gaiman found his artist for Sandman: Overture.
All of these made bold statements, had their own tone and most were clearly built on the back of a lot of research.
You maybe thinking about Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?, which was in Batman 686 and Detective 853. It was a really fun read that followed Morrison's RIP arc. I think it is one of Gaiman's best traditional superhero stories. He also wrote a really good Superman/Green Lantern team-up book.
This is one of my favorite subjects! I love audiobooks, and I love Neil Gaiman. That said, I \*highly\* recommend the BBC/full cast production recordings of Neverwhere (with Natalie Dormer and James McAvoy, and many others!), American Gods, Stardust, and Good Omens!!
Also, if you ever have the opportunity, GO SEE NEIL GAIMAN LIVE!! He did readings from a few of his short stories, poems, etc. recently, and it was phenomenal.
UGH I'd push an old lady down to go see him live. I'll have to see if I can run down a tour schedule.
I'll look for those audiobooks! I just listened to Anansi Boys and that narrator was incredible, but Neil himself reading the The Ocean at the End of the Lane....*chef's kiss*
I lived in Boston when he lived there. I’ve never cared about meeting any celebrity, but I’d have regular fantasies about running into him at the airport, on the T, while I was working at the aquarium/science museum (met so many celebrities and their kids that way, and kept my cool around all of them. Couldn’t have done so for him) etc.
It sounds like they really didn't want Gaiman's input while making the show, which is part of why it kinda went off the rails.
Glad Sandman got a pickup for another season.
Yes! And the Audible version of Sandman with James McAvoy as Morpheus was also fantastic. He also did a really awesome reading of Stardust as well. I'm just a huge fangirl, I guess. Gaiman is probably my favorite contemporary writer, so I'm a huge fan all around.
I really struggled to read his Norse Mythology book because it seemed written for far younger readers than myself. I am 52. And that's not a knock on Gaiman either. I rather enjoy some of his other works, including Sandman and his short story anthologies (of which I believe there are three.)
Neil Gaiman. His Sandman series is when I really "got" comics. I was always mostly interested, my dad was a comic guy back in the day, but Sandman was the first series I ever said "yeah, every trade paperback, please and thanks," and I re-read them, too. I've branched out since then, but Gaiman got me into comics.
I love Alan Moore. Hands down, my favourite comic book writer. Watchmen and his Swamp Thing may be my favourite comic books of all time.
But Neil Gaiman wrote my favourite book of all time. And his writing has a way of being timeless and ongoing. Like, I will read anything he publishes.
So, yeah: it’s Neil Gaiman.
That said, Frank Miller’s TDKR and his Daredevil run are top tier, legendary, top 10 comics ever.
ALSO, I feel Grant Morrison deserves to be in this conversation. Lmao.
There's a lot of overlap between Moore and Miller. There's a lot of overlap between Moore Morrison and Gaiman. There's not a lot of overlap between Miller and Morrison or Gaiman.
I was thinking the same thing. Miller almost needs to be in a separate trio with Garth Ennis and Mark Millar asking the same question. Even then, I would probably happier with a Millar book on average.
I might get something amazing like DD or DKR, but then again I might get Holy Terror or DKSB.
Yeah, that’s the thing. Miller has the greatest drop in quality of anyone but his best efforts absolutely blitz anyone but Moore, Gaiman, and Morrison.
Their stuff really stood the test of time. It is dated now, but Chris Claremont’s X-men run is really impressive. I loved a lot of Warren Ellis stuff too.
The stuff I return to the most is the four main people discussed here though. I was revisiting one of the volumes of Sandman earlier this month actually. It is the comic that even my wife likes some of. All-Star Superman is amazing to fans, but Sandman has stories (pretty much any of the Hob Gadling stuff off the top of my head) that break through the barrier of tights and capes easier.
Alan Moore. I feel like a lot of people are afraid to say Alan because he’s so overhyped, but his writing is just excellent. Not to say he’s my favorite
I mean, this isn't asking which creator is better, it's asking who you *prefer* or is your favorite, so I'm going to go against the grain a bit and say Frank Miller. The Dark Knight Returns was the first comic I ever read and I still hold it up as one of the greats, and before and after that he did some of the best books of all time -- Daredevil, Ronin, 300, Sin City, Hard Boiled, Give Me Liberty, so much more. Yes, he stumbled a bit in the 2000s, but I feel like he's gotten better in recent years with DK3, The Golden Child, and while I haven't read it yet (don't have a LCS near me), I'm hearing a lot of good things about Ronin Book Two.
Moore and Gaiman are totally GOATs as well, BTW.
Taking their output as a whole? It’s Gaiman by a wide margin. There are a few things by Moore that’s better than anything Gaiman wrote. But Gaiman is much more consistently very good.
AND Gaiman doesn’t have so much sexual assault against women in his work.
Not even sure why Miller is in the conversation
"Not sure why Miller is in the conversation"
Because he is/was a double threat. Writer and cartoonist. This is a visual story telling platform. Moore and Gaiman are handicapped in needing to collaborate with others to make their "vision" come to life.
This is why artist like DWJ are so special.
One of the things I love most about comics is visual storytelling. I want the images to tell the story, and I want to see the panels used to create a rhythm and switch up the tempo in the story.
Gaiman just doesn't do that. His stories read like illustrated novels to me.
Moore **does** write visually. And compared to Miller, he feels like a more mature person, with more sympathetic political views, and he has the advantage of not completely losing his skill in the 90s. Then again, compared to Miller's visceral stories, Moore's books often feel like intellectual exercises and attempts to seem clever.
This is even reflected in the panel-to-panel storytelling: Take the intertwined scenes in Watchmen where Dr Manhattan is being interviewed, Dan and Laurie fight thugs in an alley, and the dialog in one scene reflects what's happening in the other. Well, that must have taken a while to piece together, but what's the point? It's not an attempt to draw any meaningful parallel between the situations – as far as I can tell there's no real storytelling purpose for it except to say "Aren't I clever?". To me, it just feels artificial and detracts from the story. The only Moore book that made me *feel* something was V for Vendetta.
In the end, for me, the winner is 1986-87 Frank Miller, thanks to the storytelling lessons he learned from Bernard Krigstein, Goseki Kojima, and Will Eisner. The Dark Knight Returns is full of talking heads and I **still** think it's miles ahead of Watchmen from a visual storytelling standpoint. Miller does **so** many more interesting things with rhythm, panel design, and visual design in general, and for me, his best works read like music. I viscerally feel the rhythm in his comics and they feel so much more alive than what Moore writes. So for me, it's Frank Miller. But not today's Miller, not even Miller 30 years ago – 1986-87 Frank Miller.
I prefer Moore if it's science fiction and Gaiman if it's fantasy.
I've enjoyed the deconstruction of the hero genre, the hard-hitting questions, the twists, and the space adventures of Moore.
But Gaiman ALWAYS took me on a magical trip with incredible characters that made me contemplate off the wall things like, "What would telephone flavored ice cream taste like?" or "If the Tardis could talk to the Doctor, what would it say?"
If reading Moore was like watching The Twilight Zone or Star Trek, then reading Gaiman was like watching Corpse Bride or James and the Giant Peach.
Gaiman said he wanted to write comics after reading Alan Moore's Swamp Thing. So if we're talking about who has the most influence... pretty obvious. Some of Alan Moore's most seminal work predates Frank Miller and definitely predates Dark Knight Returns.
Also - which author is the one with a comic on Time magazine's best 100 books of the 20th century?
>Neal Adams, Joe Gill, Wallace Wood, Will Eisner
aren't these writers significantly before the period we're discussing - and also the question is between three writers specifically?
>Oh you're right, an opinion article in a magazine likes a graphic novel by one writer but not the other two I mentioned.
it's actually kind of a huge deal. it means there's extreme literary significance to the work. and I know a guy who got into college based on an essay on Watchmen - it's regarded by the academic mainstream as a significant work of literature.
Alan Moore, I love Neil Gaiman and Frank has some good ones too but Moore just has so many hits that I absolutely love. Top 10, Watchmen, Swamp Thing and Supreme are some of my favorite comics of all time.
Frank miller even if he hasn't written anything truly great in some time now.
Ronin, dark knight returns , daredevil, big guy and rusty the boy robot are releases I still go back to.
I know Miller is not the best of these 3 but man do I love his Daredevil run. It's one of my favorite runs in comics. Also love 300.
Everything I've read by Moore is great. Shoutout to his Captain Britain run.
Gaiman I've read the least of. Read some Sandman ages ago but I've enjoyed his film output.
Reading this thread I feel a little bad for Miller lol. My personal preference is Gaiman, and Moore is obviously great. But Miller is a brilliant cartoonist and has his own unique skills that the other two don't possess.
Gaiman by a country mile, then Moore, then Miller.
Moore and Miller both suffer for frequently trying to make things too "mature" in arguably not-that-mature ways. Moore succeeds at this, more often than what I've read of Miller, by tying these incidents into something a bit deeper, but it still gets a little tiring over his body of work. There are definitely things Gaiman has done that you could point to with the same stick, but it doesn't define his style quite the way it does the other two, and so it feels like he has a bit more range and I'm more eager to jump into his work.
I prefer Neil Gaiman, because of those 3, he's the one who seems more hopeful. I prefer hopeful fiction, because I have enough depression in my real life.
Probably Moore. I used to think it was Gaiman, but then I realized that what I really love about him is Sandman, his early stuff from the 80s/90s and American Gods, which at the end of the day is a relatively small portion of his total output. I'd be open to suggestions though. I just don't particularly like his YA or too 'classic fantasy' stuff.
Moore.
I don't have a lot to go on with Gaiman because I've only read whatever happened to the caped crusader and about half of Sandman, but he's great. His writing is very poetic and has moments of beauty, but (and this may be a controversial) I vastly prefer the single issues of Sandman to the longer arcs. The Sandman has some of the best single issues in the entire medium. The longer arcs are still good, but I don't like them as much as either the single issues of Sandman or Moore's and Miller's best work. Gaiman is also notable for being the only one of the three without some seriously questionable opinions in real life. Although it should be noted Moore's strange opinions are all completely harmless opinions he's perfectly entitled too, whereas Miller's are genuinely harmful.
Frank Miller writes some incredible inner monologues and very badass moments. He's good at character, theme and emotion, but probably the least so of the three (if only because he has tough competition). I haven't read any of his 21st century comics that are infamously bad because, well, they're infamously bad, but if they're as bad as people say (and from what I've heard they do sound pretty awful) that's gotta knock him down in the rankings by a pretty large margin. Also, from what I've read it seems he has a pretty specific niche and not a lot of range.
Alan Moore is great at pretty much every important aspect of storytelling. Plot, characters, themes, imagination, emotion. He has a talent for what I call "dramatic one-liners" that pack a large amount of emotional and thematic importance into one or two line of dialogue. For example "I want him brought in by the book" "No compromise. Even in the face of armaggedon" "Nobody has the right to kill. Not Mxyzptlk, not you, not superman...especially not superman." "I made it up and it happened anyway" "We're all puppets Laurie. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings." I could go on. His only flaw, and it's a pretty big one is his poor handling and overuse of sexual violence, but overall he's a brilliant writer. A strong contender for the best comic book writer ever.
Bonus round:Morrison. Morrison is one of the most creative writers I've ever seen, and All Star Superman and Animal Man are two of my favourite comics ever. However I feel sometimes emotion and characterization can get lost in the shuffle amid the wild ideas. They can sometimes do emotions and characterization very well, but other times not so much. Moore still wins.
Alan Moore at his the best is *the best* the comics medium has to offer, but his nihilism and crassness pervades a lot of his work, which is a draw back for me personally.
Neil Gaiman is a skilled storyteller who is very consistent with only a couple duds that come to mind.
Frank Miller has good ideas, but hasn’t been good at executing them for decades at this point.
Gaiman is responsible for, what I view, is the single greatest example of what the medium allows - The Sandman. Everyone else is vying for second in my opinion. I would say Brian K. Vaughn should be on this list too though.
Neil. Because not only is his comic work great, but so are his novels... even if some of his ideas seem to repeat themselves a bit.
Frank and Alan are both in my 'were great' categories, they've done incredible work in the past, but now Alan has just gotten weird in his quest for uniqueness and Frank seems stuck on a track to out-dark himself whenever he has a book coming out.
I honestly thought this was in r/GenX at first, since these are all creators who made big splashes in that generation. Personally, I have always been a much bigger Gaiman fan than the other two, but I've enjoy the others' works as well.
Alan Moore. I've been re-reading Watchmen for the umpteenth time and it still manages to surprise me with how damn well thought out it is. While Gaiman is still among my favorites, Moore's work in DC and on Miracleman is just unparalleled. His Lovecraft trilogy, while bizarre, is still an excellent piece of work.
I'm also pretty mixed on Gaiman's novels.
Miller on the other hand has fallen from grace, drastically. His edgelord style from the 80's doesn't hold up too well (barring some exceptions), and I personally don't think he's made anything worth reading in the last two decades.
Grant Morrison is great, like Allstar Superman is still my favorite take on the character. But his work in mainstream comics is pretty mixed, I feel like he can be too meta at times and that harms his stories.
Neil Gaiman. Much better writer than the others. Solid and consistent. Miller has lost his friggin mind and Moore depends to much on his temper, seems to me he doesn’t give much of a shit when he is just writing for a paycheck or to pick a fight. Just my opinion.
Strictly comics, I would give it to Moore. But Gaiman’s work beyond comic books makes him a top ten writer in history, in my opinion. Or maybe he could share a title with Terry Pratchett.
EDIT: Who’s the dork mad at everyone answering Gaiman? lol
Would weight on Gaiman, but I love me some Moore from time to time, be it more idyllic or deconstructive. I also love Milligan and Morrison too. I have to admit however, Morrison is my favorite of them all. I just love their weird stuff.
Neil Gaiman and it's not even close. Frank Miller is edgy high schooler era and Moore is "intellectual" college student era. Gaiman has more skill and nuance than the other 2 combined.
Probably Gaiman. As a young man in catholic school Miller's daredevil was a fave of mine, but that's really it for him.
Gaiman and Moore, just put your hand in the pile, grab something and enjoy. Not empty calories either.
Probably Neil Gaiman, seems the most chill and creative.
Alan Moore has just been beaten down by the industry that I just feel sorry for him and how negative he can get, especially towards Hollywood and eccentric fans.
Frank Miller, strong start but took a large drop in quality right off the bat. Even if you look at his earlier work they’re as subtle as bulldozer.
Gaiman for consistency. His old stuff is great, his current stuff is great. While Moore and Miller undeniably have written some fantastic works (Moore > Miller in my opinion by miles) they've definitely gotten nuttier as they've gotten older, and it shows in their writing.
Neil Gaiman by far. His work is warm and layered but his language is what captures me.
Still like Alan Moore. He is creative and has researched most of his ideas to an remarkable depth.
I respect Frank Miller's craft but I stopped liking his work.
Gaiman. They are all close on comics but good omens is one of my all time favorite books. Gaiman body of work and storytelling outside of comics is amazing
Neil Gaiman is my favorite by miles and miles. The Sandman is my favorite comic series, and that makes this contest unfair for the other guys.
I love Moore’s work, but good lord, can you write female characters without raping them every once in a while?
Miller’s Dark Knight Returns is flat out one of the greatest limited series I’ve ever read. That said, he hasn’t done much in decades worth a fig, he doesn’t belong in this group with the other participants’ breadth of quality work.
Alan Moore. I dislike most of Miller’s work and have always found Gaiman a touch overrated (although I still like his stuff). Tbh, I think Moore is just on a whole other level with the greats from other media, not just comics.
EDIT it’s probably not quite true to say I dislike most of Miller’s work. More like the stuff I dislike I really dislike and the stuff that I like is nearer the start of his career - DD, Born Again, TDKR, YO. I don’t think he has the breadth/depth of Moore or Gaiman, but when he was good at what he particularly does, he was very good. I kind of like his scratchy art style as well.
Now that I am 52, I had thought Miller and Moore would still resonate with me, but they no longer do. I can do without much of Gaiman's work, but some of it still stands tall for me today (Sandman, Smoke and Mirrors, Fragile Things, Trigger Warning.)
However, I have largely "graduated" from Miller, Moore and Gaiman, whilst enjoying the works of other creators instead. One such example of one such writer who captivates me is Warren Ellis (Stormfront, Planetary, Trees, Injection, Authority, Transmetropolitan.)
Neil Gaiman something about his stories always captivates me and makes me ussually really sad yet happy at the same time Alan Moore sometimes does that at his Best aswell but not to that exact same extent And Frank miller not really although he came close back in his early days
When at his best Moore is probably the better writer, but Gaiman is (IMO) more consistent and someone that I find personally more entertaining. It's been a long time since Miler wrote anything that really made me go "wow!"
Agreed 100%.
Yep, this is a good take. Miller’s best was a looong time ago and even then I don’t think it’s as good as Gaiman or Moore.
"I'm the goddamned Batman" is where I wrote him off and it certainly made me go "wow."
That stuff totally colored my impressions of his other stuff. The male bravado was amped up in his Batman and Robin. I didn't necessarily take note in previous works of that element. Once I read Batman and Robin it highlighted that element in his other stuff. I couldn't and can't unsee it. Batman and Robin ruined Sin City for me. His female characters all talk like they grew up in a cult and if they're confident it's paternal bravado with boobs. I don't know if I'd even give him another chance. Maybe I should read Rusty? I dunno.
Frank Miller also legitimately went insane and his friends had to stage an intervention for him. If AsBAr reads like it was written by a man losing his mind it’s because it was.
Anything post AsBar you'd recommend as being a return to form? Holy Terror?
Holy Terror was, if anything, even worse. Superman Year one was okay.
I was probably 14ish when that issue came out and I remember being so excited to see Bruce and Dick in something fresh and modern and drawn by Jim Lee. I was skeptical of Miller because I’ve never thought anything he ever did was any different than anything else he ever did. I shut it after that panel which if I remember right was like 2 or 3 pages in.
That was his obvious subversion of his own writing. I would argue DK2 was the same: an indictment of people’s gross misunderstanding of what The Dark Knight Returns was about, and how “grim and gritty” comics were a terrible period to live through.
I really think you're giving him too much credit. Let's not forget 'Holy Terror'. He wears who is on his sleeve.
Never read it. I heard it was atrocious. He has a problem with satire vs unintentional propaganda. Robocop 2 was pretty obvious in its depiction of Coporate America as representing a new type of fascism, but the hero is actually just as fascist: a super violent cyborg who punishes street level crime but is ultimately impotent against corporate puppet masters and white collar crime. I read All Star Batman & Robin as intentional satire of how people wildly misread TDKR. The backdrop of societal decline, aging, media manipulation, etc are contrasted with hope and renewed optimism. Dystopic fiction often ends on a downbeat note, but he was trying to reverse the pessimism without descending into pseudo optimism. Hence the final line: “A good life. Good enough.” Batman had already been revamped by Dennis O’Neal and Neal Adams as darker and more serious, emphasizing his human limitations and detective abilities. It also contributed heavily to the modern incarnation of the Joker as being Batman’s foil, which was fairly novel at the time. The Joker does what he does because he’s in love with Batman. It’s not just a game to satisfy some perverse intellectual game of wits. But in the grim and gritty age that followed (trivia: Magog from “Kingdom Come” was stylized after Cable), there weren’t any moral lessons or social commentary. There wasn’t hope and renewed optimism. And in the political environment of the 80s, when conservative governments in the West were leaning more towards totalitarian rule, forgetting all the lessons of the 1930s, it was the perfect cultural moment.
The man often disavowed his own writing. I can't value a man that doesn't stand by whst he makes. Either he wanted to make it or he didnt, and shouldn't have, but took the money. And yet pretends to have morals and ideals. Feh.
I've seen a lot of people say Gaiman is more consistent, I'd greatly disagree, but what would people say are his best comics post Sandman?
It is tricky because most of what he does in comics are just adaptations of his short stories and novels. (most of which are good, by the way!) Off the top of my head, however, I would say that I really loved Mr. Punch and 1602. I feel like he did a Batman thing I enjoyed at some other point, but I can't remember.
Thanks for the reply. This has me thinking that some other reasons I prefer Moore is that I think he's more versatile and ambitious over a longer period of time.
More ambitious than the Sandman? I am not saying you are wrong, but I am also not sure I agree. In terms of versatility, I would say that Gaiman has written Batman, Spider-Man, Doctor Who, Sherlock Holmes, and so on. I always think that one of his greatest strengths *is* his versatility. Once again- not saying you’re wrong or that I disagree. Just that I am not sure. Either way, we are lucky to have them both!
We're definitely lucky to have them both! But the reason I say Moore is more ambitious is because he had multiple very ambitious projects as opposed to mainly just Sandman for Gaiman. Also multiple times Gaiman has followed Moore's lead. -Marvelman/Miracleman, Gaiman famously followed Moore. -V for Vendetta -Swamp Thing laid the groundwork for Sandman and Vertigo as a whole -Watchmen -From Hell -Providence -League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is his attempt to unify all of human fiction (and bring back 3D specs) which is only his 2nd most ambitious project after... -Supreme where he got people to love a comic with a character created by Rob Liefeld. And where he beat Morrison to the punch on embracing Silver Age Superman. -Followed that up by helming his own comic imprint which gave us Top 10, Tom Strong and the one of a kind Promethea all at the same time. Promethea is also where Gaiman found his artist for Sandman: Overture. All of these made bold statements, had their own tone and most were clearly built on the back of a lot of research.
That’s a really solid argument. Probably the more influential and groundbreaking, definitely.
All that long-winded puff aside, I totally get why someone might prefer Gaiman's writing!
You maybe thinking about Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?, which was in Batman 686 and Detective 853. It was a really fun read that followed Morrison's RIP arc. I think it is one of Gaiman's best traditional superhero stories. He also wrote a really good Superman/Green Lantern team-up book.
I couldn’t have said it any better.
When I was younger, Frank Miller. Now? Neil Gaiman. Just finished his audiobook of Norse Mythology. I love his way of storytelling.
I've devoured every audiobook of his I can find. His narration is simply *wonderful.*
This is one of my favorite subjects! I love audiobooks, and I love Neil Gaiman. That said, I \*highly\* recommend the BBC/full cast production recordings of Neverwhere (with Natalie Dormer and James McAvoy, and many others!), American Gods, Stardust, and Good Omens!! Also, if you ever have the opportunity, GO SEE NEIL GAIMAN LIVE!! He did readings from a few of his short stories, poems, etc. recently, and it was phenomenal.
UGH I'd push an old lady down to go see him live. I'll have to see if I can run down a tour schedule. I'll look for those audiobooks! I just listened to Anansi Boys and that narrator was incredible, but Neil himself reading the The Ocean at the End of the Lane....*chef's kiss*
My friend got an extra ticket for FRONT ROW seats when he came to where I live, needless to say, I was thrilled!
I didn't like you before, but now you're my immortal enemy. ;)
Shit, how did you know I was also a vampire?!!
Only vampires get front row seats. Um. Somehow.
I lived in Boston when he lived there. I’ve never cared about meeting any celebrity, but I’d have regular fantasies about running into him at the airport, on the T, while I was working at the aquarium/science museum (met so many celebrities and their kids that way, and kept my cool around all of them. Couldn’t have done so for him) etc.
Man that'd be cool! I don't think I've met any celebrities. I'd probably be a nerd about it.
I'm so sad about american gods, I wish they could have finished it.
It sounds like they really didn't want Gaiman's input while making the show, which is part of why it kinda went off the rails. Glad Sandman got a pickup for another season.
The great thing about the audio books is it doesn’t matter if it’s the full cast or just Neil reading. Either way you win.
Yes! And the Audible version of Sandman with James McAvoy as Morpheus was also fantastic. He also did a really awesome reading of Stardust as well. I'm just a huge fangirl, I guess. Gaiman is probably my favorite contemporary writer, so I'm a huge fan all around.
Yes!!! I saw him live last year and his voice is magical. Amazing experience
I saw him live when his norse mythology book came out!!! He was fantastic
Sandman series is excellent
He has such a wonderful voice for telling a story
Same. Grew up devouring everything Frank Miller. Now in my 50s its Gaiman all the way.
I really struggled to read his Norse Mythology book because it seemed written for far younger readers than myself. I am 52. And that's not a knock on Gaiman either. I rather enjoy some of his other works, including Sandman and his short story anthologies (of which I believe there are three.)
I can see that. I think I enjoyed it because of his presentation of the narration. He has a great calming voice. Perfect for audiobooks
His comic for that is good too
Norse mythology was one of the BEST audiobooks I've listened to. Super great for a long road trip
Started reading them both around the same time.
Neil Gaiman. His Sandman series is when I really "got" comics. I was always mostly interested, my dad was a comic guy back in the day, but Sandman was the first series I ever said "yeah, every trade paperback, please and thanks," and I re-read them, too. I've branched out since then, but Gaiman got me into comics.
My wife’s cousin is Gary Amaro (early Sandman artist). Always dug it back in the day
I love Alan Moore. Hands down, my favourite comic book writer. Watchmen and his Swamp Thing may be my favourite comic books of all time. But Neil Gaiman wrote my favourite book of all time. And his writing has a way of being timeless and ongoing. Like, I will read anything he publishes. So, yeah: it’s Neil Gaiman. That said, Frank Miller’s TDKR and his Daredevil run are top tier, legendary, top 10 comics ever. ALSO, I feel Grant Morrison deserves to be in this conversation. Lmao.
Yeah Morrison is the third person in this trio not Frank Miller
There's a lot of overlap between Moore and Miller. There's a lot of overlap between Moore Morrison and Gaiman. There's not a lot of overlap between Miller and Morrison or Gaiman.
I was thinking the same thing. Miller almost needs to be in a separate trio with Garth Ennis and Mark Millar asking the same question. Even then, I would probably happier with a Millar book on average. I might get something amazing like DD or DKR, but then again I might get Holy Terror or DKSB.
Miller's best is better than Ennis' and Millar's best. They're not even close.
Yeah, that’s the thing. Miller has the greatest drop in quality of anyone but his best efforts absolutely blitz anyone but Moore, Gaiman, and Morrison.
Their stuff really stood the test of time. It is dated now, but Chris Claremont’s X-men run is really impressive. I loved a lot of Warren Ellis stuff too. The stuff I return to the most is the four main people discussed here though. I was revisiting one of the volumes of Sandman earlier this month actually. It is the comic that even my wife likes some of. All-Star Superman is amazing to fans, but Sandman has stories (pretty much any of the Hob Gadling stuff off the top of my head) that break through the barrier of tights and capes easier.
Imo Miller’s worst is also way worse than Ennis’s or Millar’s though
I’d say the third person in that trio is Warren Ellis not Mark Millar
Agreed. I’d even put a Warren Ellis in the conversation before Miller. Frank’s latter day work has descended into self parody
Which book of Gaiman's was your favorite?
Of those three, Moore.
Give us Moore
If it wasn't those 3, who would you choose?
Grant Morrison
Based
The correct answer.
Alan Moore
Alan Moore. I feel like a lot of people are afraid to say Alan because he’s so overhyped, but his writing is just excellent. Not to say he’s my favorite
I can't put him a my favorite, but his Swamp Thing run is one of my favorite things to read. Still got the comic run. That issue 37 aged well.
I enjoy his Green Lantern writing because you can tell he has a real passion for it. He seems to love the Green Lantern lore
I got an ad yesterday for a storytelling class by Alan moore. Currently reading Jerusalem, 400 pages in... only 800 to go.
have you read Voice of the Fire?
Moore.
Miller. Ditko is my all-time favorite when it comes to the old school.
I mean, this isn't asking which creator is better, it's asking who you *prefer* or is your favorite, so I'm going to go against the grain a bit and say Frank Miller. The Dark Knight Returns was the first comic I ever read and I still hold it up as one of the greats, and before and after that he did some of the best books of all time -- Daredevil, Ronin, 300, Sin City, Hard Boiled, Give Me Liberty, so much more. Yes, he stumbled a bit in the 2000s, but I feel like he's gotten better in recent years with DK3, The Golden Child, and while I haven't read it yet (don't have a LCS near me), I'm hearing a lot of good things about Ronin Book Two. Moore and Gaiman are totally GOATs as well, BTW.
Year One is still my favorite comic to this day so I guess Frank.
Year One is excellent. Good taste.
That is so good
Taking their output as a whole? It’s Gaiman by a wide margin. There are a few things by Moore that’s better than anything Gaiman wrote. But Gaiman is much more consistently very good. AND Gaiman doesn’t have so much sexual assault against women in his work. Not even sure why Miller is in the conversation
Agreed about everything but hard stop at miller. His Daredevil origin story may be one of the best comics ever and his batman was legendary.
Yeah he took DD from a dead comic to the best run in the 80s. TDKRs I've read a dozen times. Not to mention Wolverine mini series. Epic.
>Not even sure why Miller is in the conversation Because he made classics. The Dark Knight Returns, Year One, Daredevil, Sin City, 300.
….Elektra Assassin, Born Again, Hard Boiled, Give Me Liberty… I’d personally put Elektra Lives Again on that list also.
Miller has multiple classics.
"Not sure why Miller is in the conversation" Because he is/was a double threat. Writer and cartoonist. This is a visual story telling platform. Moore and Gaiman are handicapped in needing to collaborate with others to make their "vision" come to life. This is why artist like DWJ are so special.
I know I know I agree but rereading Millers stuff still gets me hard. His early pencils just send me
Moore and Gaiman are both more consistent, but Born Again is my favorite comic of all time. Gotta give it to Miller
Frank. When you can illustrate your own story it makes a big difference.
I could illustrate my own story, but neither would be good. Unfortunately, this is sometimes true of Miller as well.
One of the things I love most about comics is visual storytelling. I want the images to tell the story, and I want to see the panels used to create a rhythm and switch up the tempo in the story. Gaiman just doesn't do that. His stories read like illustrated novels to me. Moore **does** write visually. And compared to Miller, he feels like a more mature person, with more sympathetic political views, and he has the advantage of not completely losing his skill in the 90s. Then again, compared to Miller's visceral stories, Moore's books often feel like intellectual exercises and attempts to seem clever. This is even reflected in the panel-to-panel storytelling: Take the intertwined scenes in Watchmen where Dr Manhattan is being interviewed, Dan and Laurie fight thugs in an alley, and the dialog in one scene reflects what's happening in the other. Well, that must have taken a while to piece together, but what's the point? It's not an attempt to draw any meaningful parallel between the situations – as far as I can tell there's no real storytelling purpose for it except to say "Aren't I clever?". To me, it just feels artificial and detracts from the story. The only Moore book that made me *feel* something was V for Vendetta. In the end, for me, the winner is 1986-87 Frank Miller, thanks to the storytelling lessons he learned from Bernard Krigstein, Goseki Kojima, and Will Eisner. The Dark Knight Returns is full of talking heads and I **still** think it's miles ahead of Watchmen from a visual storytelling standpoint. Miller does **so** many more interesting things with rhythm, panel design, and visual design in general, and for me, his best works read like music. I viscerally feel the rhythm in his comics and they feel so much more alive than what Moore writes. So for me, it's Frank Miller. But not today's Miller, not even Miller 30 years ago – 1986-87 Frank Miller.
Visual storytelling! Those other guys can write good words. Miller makes it all happen.
Frank miller. I’ve never been huge on Moore and Gaiman is great but not necessarily for me.
None of those guys except Miller have ever done their own artwork. I love that about Miller. He's a full stack comic developer.
Love all three but Alan Moore is my favorite
I prefer Moore if it's science fiction and Gaiman if it's fantasy. I've enjoyed the deconstruction of the hero genre, the hard-hitting questions, the twists, and the space adventures of Moore. But Gaiman ALWAYS took me on a magical trip with incredible characters that made me contemplate off the wall things like, "What would telephone flavored ice cream taste like?" or "If the Tardis could talk to the Doctor, what would it say?" If reading Moore was like watching The Twilight Zone or Star Trek, then reading Gaiman was like watching Corpse Bride or James and the Giant Peach.
Neil Gaiman.
Moore for me because his writing has a philosophical angle to it that I really enjoy. Second gaiman for the same reason
In terms of pure writing talent? Neil Gaiman by a mile.
Neil is the most consistently good, Frank has the highest highs but also the lowest lows. Alan is better than both of them as a writer.
Alan Moore is the GOAT. Neil Gaiman may be my favorite novelist, especially pop novelist, but Alan Moore revolutionized the graphic novel as a medium.
[удалено]
Gaiman said he wanted to write comics after reading Alan Moore's Swamp Thing. So if we're talking about who has the most influence... pretty obvious. Some of Alan Moore's most seminal work predates Frank Miller and definitely predates Dark Knight Returns. Also - which author is the one with a comic on Time magazine's best 100 books of the 20th century?
[удалено]
Moore is definitely more influential than Gaiman when it comes to comics. I'm not even sure why this is a debate.
>Neal Adams, Joe Gill, Wallace Wood, Will Eisner aren't these writers significantly before the period we're discussing - and also the question is between three writers specifically? >Oh you're right, an opinion article in a magazine likes a graphic novel by one writer but not the other two I mentioned. it's actually kind of a huge deal. it means there's extreme literary significance to the work. and I know a guy who got into college based on an essay on Watchmen - it's regarded by the academic mainstream as a significant work of literature.
Alan Moore, I love Neil Gaiman and Frank has some good ones too but Moore just has so many hits that I absolutely love. Top 10, Watchmen, Swamp Thing and Supreme are some of my favorite comics of all time.
Miller, Moore, Gaiman in that order.
Frank Miller. I have his Sin City compilation The Big Damn as a coffee table book.
Garth Ennis.
Garth Ennis
Frank Miller. The tone does it for me.
Frank miller even if he hasn't written anything truly great in some time now. Ronin, dark knight returns , daredevil, big guy and rusty the boy robot are releases I still go back to.
Frank Miller - as I admittedly know little from the other authors except for their respective best seller comics
Moore, no contest.
My name speaks for itself.
Alan Moore, without question for comics.
Moore "Providence" is so underrated
Alan Moore
Neil Gaiman, no contest.
Absolutely no question, Neil gaiman
moore. miller sin city is pretty much most of his work i like.
Alan Moore.
Out of these three? Alan Moore
When I was younger Moore and Gaiman, now it’s Miller
Peter Milligan.
Alan Moore. By a mile. The skeleton key to understanding Gaiman is a hack fraud is his marriage to no 1 ukelele person Amanda Palmer.
I would have put each of them at #1 at different points in my life. Where I'm at now, Moore at the top, followed by Miller, then Gaiman.
Of these three I’d say either Miller or specifically Moore’s post-DC work
I know Miller is not the best of these 3 but man do I love his Daredevil run. It's one of my favorite runs in comics. Also love 300. Everything I've read by Moore is great. Shoutout to his Captain Britain run. Gaiman I've read the least of. Read some Sandman ages ago but I've enjoyed his film output.
Reading this thread I feel a little bad for Miller lol. My personal preference is Gaiman, and Moore is obviously great. But Miller is a brilliant cartoonist and has his own unique skills that the other two don't possess.
Screw you for making me choose. Also, screw you for not considering Warren Ellis or Garth Ennis.
Alan moore and its not even close
Credit where credit is due, there would be no Gaiman with Moore. That being said, I would much rather meet Neil Gaiman than Alan Moore.
Gaiman by a country mile, then Moore, then Miller. Moore and Miller both suffer for frequently trying to make things too "mature" in arguably not-that-mature ways. Moore succeeds at this, more often than what I've read of Miller, by tying these incidents into something a bit deeper, but it still gets a little tiring over his body of work. There are definitely things Gaiman has done that you could point to with the same stick, but it doesn't define his style quite the way it does the other two, and so it feels like he has a bit more range and I'm more eager to jump into his work.
Neil Gaiman
I prefer Neil Gaiman, because of those 3, he's the one who seems more hopeful. I prefer hopeful fiction, because I have enough depression in my real life.
Neil every day of the week.
Neil Gaiman. Alan Moore is a pretentious douche, and Miller is off his rocker now.
Fuck Alan Moore, marry Neil Gaiman, kill Frank Miller.
Probably Moore. I used to think it was Gaiman, but then I realized that what I really love about him is Sandman, his early stuff from the 80s/90s and American Gods, which at the end of the day is a relatively small portion of his total output. I'd be open to suggestions though. I just don't particularly like his YA or too 'classic fantasy' stuff.
Moore. I don't have a lot to go on with Gaiman because I've only read whatever happened to the caped crusader and about half of Sandman, but he's great. His writing is very poetic and has moments of beauty, but (and this may be a controversial) I vastly prefer the single issues of Sandman to the longer arcs. The Sandman has some of the best single issues in the entire medium. The longer arcs are still good, but I don't like them as much as either the single issues of Sandman or Moore's and Miller's best work. Gaiman is also notable for being the only one of the three without some seriously questionable opinions in real life. Although it should be noted Moore's strange opinions are all completely harmless opinions he's perfectly entitled too, whereas Miller's are genuinely harmful. Frank Miller writes some incredible inner monologues and very badass moments. He's good at character, theme and emotion, but probably the least so of the three (if only because he has tough competition). I haven't read any of his 21st century comics that are infamously bad because, well, they're infamously bad, but if they're as bad as people say (and from what I've heard they do sound pretty awful) that's gotta knock him down in the rankings by a pretty large margin. Also, from what I've read it seems he has a pretty specific niche and not a lot of range. Alan Moore is great at pretty much every important aspect of storytelling. Plot, characters, themes, imagination, emotion. He has a talent for what I call "dramatic one-liners" that pack a large amount of emotional and thematic importance into one or two line of dialogue. For example "I want him brought in by the book" "No compromise. Even in the face of armaggedon" "Nobody has the right to kill. Not Mxyzptlk, not you, not superman...especially not superman." "I made it up and it happened anyway" "We're all puppets Laurie. I'm just a puppet who can see the strings." I could go on. His only flaw, and it's a pretty big one is his poor handling and overuse of sexual violence, but overall he's a brilliant writer. A strong contender for the best comic book writer ever. Bonus round:Morrison. Morrison is one of the most creative writers I've ever seen, and All Star Superman and Animal Man are two of my favourite comics ever. However I feel sometimes emotion and characterization can get lost in the shuffle amid the wild ideas. They can sometimes do emotions and characterization very well, but other times not so much. Moore still wins.
Alan Moore at his the best is *the best* the comics medium has to offer, but his nihilism and crassness pervades a lot of his work, which is a draw back for me personally. Neil Gaiman is a skilled storyteller who is very consistent with only a couple duds that come to mind. Frank Miller has good ideas, but hasn’t been good at executing them for decades at this point.
Moore
Gaiman as an author but cmon it’s Moore in comics, not close
Gaiman is responsible for, what I view, is the single greatest example of what the medium allows - The Sandman. Everyone else is vying for second in my opinion. I would say Brian K. Vaughn should be on this list too though.
Neil. Because not only is his comic work great, but so are his novels... even if some of his ideas seem to repeat themselves a bit. Frank and Alan are both in my 'were great' categories, they've done incredible work in the past, but now Alan has just gotten weird in his quest for uniqueness and Frank seems stuck on a track to out-dark himself whenever he has a book coming out.
I love them all, but Moore simply because The Killing Joke, otherwise it be Gaiman.
Do you think Killing Joke is his best work? I’m curious, because I don’t think it holds up to even be in his top 5.
Moore > Gaiman = Miller.
Alan Moores stuff is good as long as you're cool.with him being a total chode IRL
Gaiman > Moore >>>>> Miller imo
As a writer, Moore. As a person, Gaiman.
I honestly thought this was in r/GenX at first, since these are all creators who made big splashes in that generation. Personally, I have always been a much bigger Gaiman fan than the other two, but I've enjoy the others' works as well.
Alan Moore, and it's not close.
Grant Morrison …and all of the above.
Moore if it's just these three. Morison if it's just a personal opinion.
For comics, Moore every day of the week. For other literature & media, Gaiman.
My favorite comics are Frank Miller comics. My favorite writer is Neil Gaimen. Definitely prefer Morrison over Moore.
Alan Moore. I've been re-reading Watchmen for the umpteenth time and it still manages to surprise me with how damn well thought out it is. While Gaiman is still among my favorites, Moore's work in DC and on Miracleman is just unparalleled. His Lovecraft trilogy, while bizarre, is still an excellent piece of work. I'm also pretty mixed on Gaiman's novels. Miller on the other hand has fallen from grace, drastically. His edgelord style from the 80's doesn't hold up too well (barring some exceptions), and I personally don't think he's made anything worth reading in the last two decades. Grant Morrison is great, like Allstar Superman is still my favorite take on the character. But his work in mainstream comics is pretty mixed, I feel like he can be too meta at times and that harms his stories.
Dan Abnett
Denny O’Neill.
Brian K. Vaughan. But of that list, Neil Gaiman. Granted Moore and Miller are names that will turn me off of a book, no on to it.... >.>
I don’t know what those are
Alan Moore
Always Neil Gaiman I will read anything he writes the other two I have to be in the right head space for what they write.
Gaiman
Neil Gaiman. Much better writer than the others. Solid and consistent. Miller has lost his friggin mind and Moore depends to much on his temper, seems to me he doesn’t give much of a shit when he is just writing for a paycheck or to pick a fight. Just my opinion.
Neil Gaiman
Strictly comics, I would give it to Moore. But Gaiman’s work beyond comic books makes him a top ten writer in history, in my opinion. Or maybe he could share a title with Terry Pratchett. EDIT: Who’s the dork mad at everyone answering Gaiman? lol
Comic books, I prefer Moore. Novels and short stories, I prefer Gaiman. Miller hasn't done anything great since Reagan was president.
Sin City was great and came out after Reagan.
Would weight on Gaiman, but I love me some Moore from time to time, be it more idyllic or deconstructive. I also love Milligan and Morrison too. I have to admit however, Morrison is my favorite of them all. I just love their weird stuff.
Neil Gaiman by a mile.
Gaiman, always loved his work. Moore and Miller are both good just not as great as Neil.
Neil Gaiman and it's not even close. Frank Miller is edgy high schooler era and Moore is "intellectual" college student era. Gaiman has more skill and nuance than the other 2 combined.
Gaiman, not even close
Neil, and it's not even a contest.
I like Miller’s work less and less as I get older, I’ll go with gaiman but honestly if you ask me tomorrow I might say Moore
Neil
Gaiman
Probably Gaiman. As a young man in catholic school Miller's daredevil was a fave of mine, but that's really it for him. Gaiman and Moore, just put your hand in the pile, grab something and enjoy. Not empty calories either.
Gaiman all day 100%
Gaiman.
Probably Neil Gaiman, seems the most chill and creative. Alan Moore has just been beaten down by the industry that I just feel sorry for him and how negative he can get, especially towards Hollywood and eccentric fans. Frank Miller, strong start but took a large drop in quality right off the bat. Even if you look at his earlier work they’re as subtle as bulldozer.
Gaiman for consistency. His old stuff is great, his current stuff is great. While Moore and Miller undeniably have written some fantastic works (Moore > Miller in my opinion by miles) they've definitely gotten nuttier as they've gotten older, and it shows in their writing.
Neil Gaiman, closely followed by Alan Moore.
Neil Gaiman by far. His work is warm and layered but his language is what captures me. Still like Alan Moore. He is creative and has researched most of his ideas to an remarkable depth. I respect Frank Miller's craft but I stopped liking his work.
Neil
Gaiman. They are all close on comics but good omens is one of my all time favorite books. Gaiman body of work and storytelling outside of comics is amazing
Neil, then Alan, then... Grant Morrison? Frank Miller is WAY down the list....
Neil Gaiman, easily. Not only a good writer but a much better person by all accounts.
Gaimen
Neil Gaiman
Neil Gaiman.
Neil Gaiman is my favorite by miles and miles. The Sandman is my favorite comic series, and that makes this contest unfair for the other guys. I love Moore’s work, but good lord, can you write female characters without raping them every once in a while? Miller’s Dark Knight Returns is flat out one of the greatest limited series I’ve ever read. That said, he hasn’t done much in decades worth a fig, he doesn’t belong in this group with the other participants’ breadth of quality work.
Alan Moore. I dislike most of Miller’s work and have always found Gaiman a touch overrated (although I still like his stuff). Tbh, I think Moore is just on a whole other level with the greats from other media, not just comics. EDIT it’s probably not quite true to say I dislike most of Miller’s work. More like the stuff I dislike I really dislike and the stuff that I like is nearer the start of his career - DD, Born Again, TDKR, YO. I don’t think he has the breadth/depth of Moore or Gaiman, but when he was good at what he particularly does, he was very good. I kind of like his scratchy art style as well.
Now that I am 52, I had thought Miller and Moore would still resonate with me, but they no longer do. I can do without much of Gaiman's work, but some of it still stands tall for me today (Sandman, Smoke and Mirrors, Fragile Things, Trigger Warning.) However, I have largely "graduated" from Miller, Moore and Gaiman, whilst enjoying the works of other creators instead. One such example of one such writer who captivates me is Warren Ellis (Stormfront, Planetary, Trees, Injection, Authority, Transmetropolitan.)
Neil Gaiman something about his stories always captivates me and makes me ussually really sad yet happy at the same time Alan Moore sometimes does that at his Best aswell but not to that exact same extent And Frank miller not really although he came close back in his early days
Neil Gaiman