Critics and their choices

Funnily enough, i havent begun to write but I already dislike critics. Not because they are rude or cynical or seem to enjoy trading insults, but because even the material they praise has a sameness to it.
The times has a list of top 10 graphic novels and a self proclaimed Graphic Literature Library: 25 books from 25 years for smart, sophisticated readers.
And im struck by the lack of graphic novels as most graphic novels readers are aware of. I embarked on a course to read some of these from my friendly neighborhood library. And there were some truly amazing gems (Persepolis which made laugh and feel sad at the same time). But it looks like the critics here too want graphic novels to be exactly the same as the movies and books they rate highly.
Look through the top 10 list , There's Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns and Bone, stories that are imaginative and comic-booky. But the other choices?
I expected lots from Blankets love and religion collide (a topic i am intimately familiar with) but it was vaguely unsatisfying, perhaps because it is semi autobiographical, it didnt have a satisfying conclusion or indeed explanation.
The boulevard of broken dreams was a ho hum so so book. And no i didnt find the explores the nature of reality, the mystery of inspiration, the exploitation of pop culture and the redemptive power of art.
Onward to David Boring , its tempting to quip Boring!. Note the "truly novelistic approach to graphical storytelling" umm why not write a novel? But anyway the story wasnt that great , nor was the art and this cant be a top 10 can it?
Jimmy Corrigan , i was excited to get the book, because the last time I had someone(Rudyard Kipling) describe a book as the perfect short story it turned out to be Lord Emsworth and the girlfriend. And boy was that a perfect short story. But Jimmy Corrigan? Hard to read, difficult to comprehend, generally depressing and eminently forgettable.
Moving onto the 25 list , I wonder if the Golems mighty swing would make it to the list if it didnt have a jewish team playing. Its a good book but not a top 25 book. Louis Riel was ok , not knowing much of canadian history i guess i dont identify much with this story. Maus is a good book , but except for the bit where spiegelman shows 10 pages he wrote when he contemplated suicide, the rest of the book was , I felt vastly overrated. But anything related to the holocaust automatically gets praise. Just ask Steven Spielberg. Though Maus was definitely very good just not as good as all the critics say it is.
And then i lost interest in reading more of the critics choice.
Theres a common thread in most of their choices. 'Realistic fiction' , preferably depressing and dark, and mostly similar to work that is available in books or movies.
And I find that i dislike it. I think how many times humor comics or perhaps even books and movies have made it to say an award in their respective fields? Its so much easier to write dark , 'realistic' stories. (I always quote realistic because is there any writing that states the truth and nothing but the truth so help me god?)
Lets not go into why are Sandman, Lucifer, Swamp Thing, Fables, Y, V for vendetta absent from the list (I count collected paperback as graphic novels)
Lets not even go into why are pure superhero action books missing from the set A year one or whatever happened to the man of tomorrow
But no mention of Asterix and Calvin and Hobbes? Why are they not funny enough or is fun not meant to be an attribute of a book? In all my life i havent met anyone who has read Asterix and who didnt have fond memories of them(some preferred tintin but thats a different article). Indeed most would read them again. Oh and Calvin and Hobbes. But humor , making someone laugh, is not a good enough motive by itself. And so youll never see any of the books that make you smile ever on these top lists.
But then perhaps i should stop reading the lists compiled by others and go read Vol I - The complete Calvin and Hobbes
Its a magical world...