I’m not arguing the inclusion of the graphic novel Fun Home to the list. I’ve always been a fan of Alison Bechdel’s work, and while I haven’t gotten to this book yet, I’ve heard nothing but wonderful things about it. It’s in my to-read pile, which at this point is almost as tall as the house.
But…one graphic novel out of a hundred? This has been the year of the literary graphic novel. Having only one graphic novel named a "notable" book smacks of tokenism. Where’s Jessica Abel’s La Perdida? Eddie Campbell’s Fate of the Artist? Mom’s Cancer (quite possibly my favorite graphic novel of the year)? Gilbert Hernandez’s Sloth? Heck, Alan Moore’s Lost Girls may not have well-reviewed, but it certainly was notable for the taboos it broke.
Note that I’m only mentioning new material, not reprinted material. But there are books on the NYT list that would be considered representations of older material. Ginsberg’s poems, Joyce Carroll Oates’s short stories, and others made the list. If those books are worthy of inclusion, why not, say, Absolute Sandman or Kings in Disguise or Castle Waiting or a Complete Peanuts or Dennis the Menace collection?
Some will say that the inclusion of Fun House indicates that comics are finally being accepted as an artistic medium. I say one out of a hundred shows how large the gap really is.