I refuse to pick, and you can't make me.

Two pretentious twits, one of which has written some great comics with good artists, the other which has not. So, Alan it is.

Plus he has that life size Kirby figure.

Tough pick. I gave a slight edge to Alan Moore. Although Gaiman is nearer to my heart (as I dig the whole theme that drives all his writing), Gaiman is a little more johnny-one-note than Alan Moore. He keeps going back to that "soft spots in the world which overlap with fantasy, and people are not what they seem, and they walk among us" thing.

Moore has stretched in all different directions, without returning to the same well.

L'il Jay has nicely expressed the same basic reasons I have for voting for Moore here. Thank you.

I give Gaiman the edge because of how I feel about SANDMAN.

To be fair, I love Moore's WATCHMEN and SWAMP THING.

Moore is over rated.

Gaiman. Moore's work feels a bit detached, to me. I love his stories, but rarely care about what's happening to his characters. With Gaiman, there is a repetition to some of his stories, but the characters feel more real, and I feel more connected to them.

IAWTP

Alan Moore easily, he has a much wider range. Also, his tales have more re-readability. I read through Sandman once and while there were some great issues (Dream of 1,000 cats being my favorite), on the whole I found it only to be slighly better than average and never felt the need to revisit those TPB's. Moore's stuff I can come back to again and again, finding new nuances each time.

Love 'em both, but for all the reasons stated above, I go with Moore. His broad range is one of his best traits. He can do pulp and dark and complex and simple and adventure and talky and historical and magical and science fiction.

And he does it all well. They all have their own voice. They don't sound like the same guy mixing up the window dressing. He truly does take a different approach depending on his subject matter and setting. Very versatile.

I don't like Moore that much. (in execution if not ideas)

But Gaiman? I've hardly read anything by him. Just 1602 which, frankly, blew chunks.

I'll give it to Moore for his two Superman stories which are pretty good.

I'd go with Moore. Gaiman has two series that I think are really good, Moore has a long list of stuff that I think is fantastic.

Gaiman -- he writes about people, whereas Moore has ideas that he tries to graft characters onto. Technically accomplished, but having no soul, his recent work is more commentary on other people's works than narrative.

Agreed. And Gaiman has written some excellent, excellent urban fantasy prose, which Moore has not even attempted. Moore's got some great ideas, and can write a clever turn of phrase. Gaiman's the whole package.

Don't like either.

I voted for Gaiman for winning the McFarlane lawsuit.

Read SANDMAN, putz.

+1

Moore by a million miles.

I like 'em both, but I've voting for the guy that I wouldn't be embarrassed to be seen with.

So, it's Moore then.