Minx and The Mystery of the Lose-Lose: Jeff Looks at Confessions of a Blabbermouth.

Reviewing Confessions of a Blabbermouth is a can't win situation--it's written by Mike Carey and his fifteen-year-old daughter Louise and illustrated by Aaron Alexovich for DC's Minx line, and I think it's not only excellent that DC is publishing a line for teen female readers, it's doubly excellent that there's a teen female writer involved in the line as well. So my instinct is to write something that would, in effect, praise all involved--in essence, give them a tickertape parade and the key to the city. Unfortunately, I found Confessions of a Blabbermouth a vexing read, so I would have to follow up that tickertape parade and key to the city with sticking them with the clean-up bill to and then riding them out of town on a rail. If I was smarter, I would just skip the review and let the whole thing go unremarked on, but, of course, I'm not smart. Also, apart from providing guidance to whomever might be thinking of picking this up, the review might allow me the chance to vent a bit about my frustrations with the Minx line based on this book and The Plain Janes.  

(To be clear, I haven't read other books in the line--although Re-Gifters is lying around somewhere--and so criticizing a line of six books based on the two I've read puts me on pretty shaky ground. And yet, because Plain Janes' and Confessions' mistakes, although different, feel grounded in the same problem, I think it's worth the risk of looking foolish as well as ungracious.)

 

For me, the problem stems in large part from perception. DC's Minx line openly promotes itself as being for female teen readers and I think that's good: OGNs aimed at teen females is a market that's worth tapping into; the more teens, females, and female teens we get reading comics the better; and if a teen who wanders into a shop looking for the next Minx book ends up picking up, say, Jaime Hernandez's Locas, then, really, the whole thing is worth it. But by creating a book line with such a clearly defined target audience and a clearly defined goal, you're one step closer to creating books that are more product than art. And while I don't have a particular problem with that--I don't mind picking up a Minx book knowing it's unlikely I'm going to read some intense work of raw personal vision, the next Diary of a Teenage Girl by Phoebe Gloeckner--I do think the closer a work comes to being product, the higher the expectation becomes that the product be of professional standards. I think this is how most of us who aren't trained in the mystic ways of the critical arts are able to tell if a genre piece of work is good or bad--if it's a comedy, is it funny? If it's an action movie, are the action sequences satisfying? Do the people making the cop movie know what a cop movie is supposed to deliver? Do they satisfy? (If so, then people usually say it's good.) Does it know what it's supposed to deliver and give it a unique twist? (If so, then people usually say it's very good.) This is also why the farther someone operates outside the realm of pure art and farther from the realm of pure product, the more we're generally willing to cut the creator more slack: I'm far less likely to complain about Sophie Crumb's problems with anatomy than, say, Whilce Portacio's.

 

I'd like to think this is why Plain Janes' "it's not an ending, it's a stopping" deeply annoyed me (and Abhay too, apparently): no one's thrilled to assemble a table and discover there's only three of the four legs. Similarly, pesky problems cropped up throughout Confessions of a Blabbermouth, the story of a teen blogger at loggerheads with the new man in her mom's life and his daughter, like "She's not a blabbermouth, she's a liar," "why does the blog look like a zine?" "why is [certain character] able to write a scathingly accurate satire of bloggers but then goes on to call them 'blingers?'" and "what kind of narrative feint in a high school social comedy is potential molestation and incest, anyway?" caused me a great deal of annoyance.

 

Let's take that last one: if, for example, the reason why Bridget Jones can't get together with Mark Darcy is she believes him to have encouraged the Rwandan Genocide, it's a great explanation for why the two characters don't get together, but it also knocks the reader/viewer out of the work. So when Confessions... looks like it's taking a turn into darker territory, it's certainly effective, but when the feint turns out to be something entirely different, the spectre of the previous topic still colors the conclusion of the work.

 

What I find most depressing about the Minx line at this point is that DC clearly wants to duplicate manga's success with the Minx line, but can't be bothered in the fucking slightest learn any of the simplest lessons from manga. Over at Sporadic Sequential lately, there have been some intriguing posts explaining the importance of editors in manga. Even before those posts, I knew that editors were heavily involved in manga's creation (it's something the authors are always very quick to mention in their own books). So why does the Minx line apparently have the same hands-off editing approach shared by the vast majority of the North American comics market? I assume that's why Plain Janes can get published with such a bumbled ending, or Confessions... can disastrously muck up its own tone. But does that really bode particularly well for the line?

 

The more professional and satisfyingly competent the work is, the better the chance it'll appeal to an audience outside its niche: I'm thinking here in particular of Pixar's films, that operate in a pretty narrowly defined range and yet appeal to just about everyone. Again, I'd like to think that explains how manga, comics created for acutely specific audiences in an acutely specific culture, are able to be read and enjoyed in such large numbers worldwide. Or why Looney Tunes can be enjoyed by kids and adults decades and decades after the work was produced.

 

I'm not calling for the return of Mort Weisinger or anything, but where the hell is our Maxwell Perkins? Or at the very least, where the hell is the person who's supposed to keep the creators from cocking up their own work?

 

Confessions of a Blabbermouth is an easy read, amusing in places, has some very nice turns of phrase, and the individual sequences are polished and strong. It comes from a group of creators I'd like to see do more work in the industry (as if Mike Carey could do more work in the industry than he is currently!). And yet, it's ultimately an Eh work that could've easily been much better than it is, and that's genuinely frustrating.

The Omega Effect: Diana ponders 10/3

OMEGA THE UNKNOWN #1 is arguably Marvel's most noteworthy release this week... because it doesn't look like something Marvel would publish. Consider the history: novelist Jonathan Lethem, freshly recruited by Marvel, has chosen to remake a semi-obscure Steve Gerber miniseries on the basis that the original story never got a proper ending, having been cancelled due to low sales. There seems to be a genuine sense of nostalgia attached to the product, as opposed to the usual exploitative self-cannibalism - "let's dig up some graves and see if the bones sell". While I never read the original Gerber mini, it doesn't feel like Lethem is targeting specific aspects of the premise and revamping them so the modern reader finds them "accessible". More to the point, it's a revival of a property that has zero visible ties to the Marvel Universe, and from a marketing standpoint, it probably won't go far on the charts. And yet here it is.

Consider Lethem's story: a bizarre, slightly off-kilter narrative that may or may not be telling two tales at once. It's probably no coincidence that the first page describes this miniseries as "a version of an unfinished dream", because it really does read like a dream sequence, jumping from place to place while vague events unfold everywhere. This first issue was thoroughly weird, shades of David Lynch but without that sinking feeling you get when you realize there aren't any answers coming. Ever. EVER.

Consider Farel Dalrymple's artwork: simplistic, slightly reminiscient of pulp, with faded colors and big, chaotic lettering. It's a far cry from the usual vibrancy and clean order found in the Marvel Universe.

Everything about OMEGA THE UNKNOWN #1 screams "UNCONVENTIONAL!!!", and that's something Marvel hasn't actively pursued in a good long while... not since the days of X-STATIX, I think. And not only is it different, it doesn't flop around awkwardly like other series that would like to be different and go about it in all the wrong ways. The loopy, sometimes awkward dialogue and the abrupt scene shifts and the total lack of clarity all manifest here as conscious choices, rather than the result of flawed writing. On these grounds, I'm going with GOOD for now. We'll see where it goes next.

Forward! The March of Reviews: Jog is twirling a baton for 10/3, twirl twirl around

The last parade I saw in person stalled when a surprise thunderstorm rolled in and knocked out power for the entire town. Rows and rows of vintage cars left idling confusedly in the street. Idling is a good term... Infinity Inc. #2: The first issue of this Peter Milligan-written 52 spin-off series was met with reviews that could charitably be called mixed. I liked it, myself. I really dug the concept of post-prominence superheroes, all of them 'canceled' by the sinister company supporting them, seeking out ways of coping through varied species of psychological help, all of it futile or backfiring. A natural continuation of Milligan's fame-hungry superhero studies of Paradax and X-Statix, albeit far bleaker than anything before, with the downward spiral as the focus. I was interested in where Milligan might take the premise.

Not anywhere interesting with this second issue, which folds the themes of the first into an underwhelming investigation plot. John Henry is trying to figure out what the hell happened to Natasha at the end of last issue, so he wanders around chatting people up while other characters discuss their problems amongst themselves. There's a cute Superman guest bit, highlighting the kindly but godly nature of that enduring icon, but the comic's conversations mostly spin plot wheels or restate the themes of issue #1. Further, the superhero suspense doesn't always meld smoothly into the whole; Kid Empty may be a neat idea for this particular story's quasi-villain, being a guy with so little left inside he literally leeches the being out of loved ones and acquaintances, but his bland vampire powers don't stand out when he's simply left to do villainous things, and that's all he's got here.

Max Fiumara's art remains functional enough from a storytelling standpoint; his real strength on this title is the hesitancy and ominousness he brings to his character work, although Dom Regan's shiny-slick colors prove distracting. It may still all come together, though, as the team finds its footing and premise figures out a way to stretch. A letdown EH for now.

Jog is a Pliable Ball of Review: Never stop believing in childhood wonder or the comics of 10/3

I think I'll spread these new comics reviews out over the next few days, although I'm also going to have my column up later tomorrow, I hope.

Gumby #3: It's been a while since the last proper issue of this Bob Burden/Rick Geary revival project; the Shannon Wheeler-written FCBD issue didn't do the trick for me, Mark Bodé guest sequence or not. Luckily, this is a nice 35-page chunk of story. Unluckily, pages 18 and 19 are duplicates, although nothing seems to have gotten pasted over. I think the paper quality's been downgraded too?

Regardless, I do have a soft spot for this series; there's a special quality to Burden's mix of musty old pop culture references, occasionally bracing oddness, and gently melancholic childhood reverie that kneads well into Geary's chunky drawings and Steve Oliff's bright coloring. There's a real square energy to the book that keeps me reading.

This issue sees Gumby trying out the adult world while his parents are hypnotized into thinking a pile of potatoes are him, leading to Gumby's participation in both kitchen hi-jinx ("OH NO!! GUMBY'S FEET ARE COOKING!") and a timeshare scheme masterminded by cannibal salesmen. When their boss is asked if he feels bad about all the people they ate, he replies "Not my responsibility! They were independant contractors!" I laughed at that, and actually felt myself age for a moment. There's also a giant porkchop attack, a war between Zodiac spirits and laser beams hidden in teeth, and jarring ruminations on death and artificial preservatives. Ha ha, Gumby scares the pork chop by changing into a fork!

I mean, this is a weird book. And not just because 'weird' things happen, but because it's using the form of a kids' licensed character comic to broadcast an awfully specific set of veiled adult concerns. It feels like a really personal comic, to the point where Gumby's very presence seems more surreal flourish than... Gumby having a comic. GOOD for me!

Johanna Visits the Subculture

Subculture #1 assembles clichés into a too-familiar story, running the risk of demonstrating contempt for the kind of reader it will attract. Kevin Freeman writes and Stan Yan draws the story of a depressed retail-rat comic reader. He hates his nowhere job. He hates his demanding boss. He goes to the comic store to complain about the books he buys. His friends there speculate on which superheroines don't wear underwear (and there's only one girl, a fat manga reader obsessed with our "hero"). His roommate does nothing but play video and card and role-playing games.

Then a new girl with multiple piercings enters the shop. She's an artist, opening a gallery, and she's got her own taste in indy books. She asks him out (good thing, or there'd be no series, since he has no initiative). She's perfect for him, pursuing him, talking comics with him.

The problem is, there's no sense of these characters beyond the surface. I do think it's well-meaning, an attempt to realistically capture the kind of characters the creators know or have known, but they're all different shades of unpleasant to look at and read about. I hope they get their happy ending, but I felt vaguely dirty after finishing the comic.

What's the point when we've all seen these stereotypes ourselves? And done better, in comics like Dork! or Box Office Poison? What insight is this book showing us about these character types? "I know people like this" isn't enough.

Only Once Every Year: Jog celebrates some Annuals of 9/26 with drink and horns

Time to round up some recent punches and kicks, some of which think they're so special...

The Punisher MAX Annual #1: Non-exhaustive use #1 for the 'Annual' in the 21st century - a tryout, and/or a sample. I expect you've all heard the rumors that Garth Ennis will be leaving the main Punisher series soon, and that this issue's writer, Mike Benson, is one of the people under watch as a possible replacement. Benson's a writer for television's Entourage, and is already taking over for Charlie Huston on Moon Knight. It's hard not to see this special as a possible glimpse of what's to come.

Of course, writing a single issue and constructing a full storyline are different things; I've always felt much of the pleasure in Ennis' work on the title is in how his storylines play out, and how earlier storylines feed into later ones. Benson obviously doesn't have that chance here. Ennis' work will also have a gravitational pull on whatever's next, so it's also maybe understandable that Benson leaves the title character off to the side for now, focusing instead on the panicked reactions of a crook being pursued. A handy stock plot for an unstoppable character of Frank Castle's type.

However, Benson accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond what you'd expect from hearing the premise. There's typical regrets of past mistakes, bravado giving way to terror, the usual hopelessness closing in, and inevitable resignation capping it all off. The particulars of a story like this have to sing to give it any resonance, but there's only serviceable profanities and dull narration here. Artist Laurence Campbell and colorist Lee Loughridge do provide a few striking panels of city lights and gunfire, with a very crisply paced sepia shootout sequence, but that's not getting the package higher than EH. Who knows what'll happen with the main series, but I hope its broader space will prompt some zest.

The Immortal Iron Fist #9 & The Immortal Iron Fist Annual #1: Non-exhaustive use #2 for the 'Annual' in the 21st century - a means of stretching out the plot a bit, while taking a side route, without the need for visual consistency with the main series. For all intents and purposes the Annual here is Iron Fist #9.5, and it's too bad it had to come out on the same day as its direct predecessor, since it might have acted as a treat for fans in between issues; released concurrently, some browsers might presume it's more extraneous than it actually is.

Issue #9 is an easy enough GOOD, starting and immediately pausing the big fighting tourney, rolling around in artist David Aja's faintly tongue-in-cheek battle compositions while colorist Matt Hollingsworth insists that everything is very slate and serious. Charm enough to burn.

The Annual moves that plot forward a little bit more, and dives back into issue #7's Tales of the Iron Fists style, which is proving to be a smart way for writers Ed Brubaker & Matt Fraction to build up the background while providing relief for the main storyline. Howard Chaykin ably handles the 'present' action, with Danny Rand hearing the tales of Lucky Pierre (which I'll always think of as an H.G. Lewis reference first), while danger lurks on the fringes. Meanwhile, pulpy flashback half-stories are handled by two different artists. Dan Brereton is fitting and impressive, adopting just the right raised-eyebrow tone for his painterly visuals. In contrast, Jelena Kevic Djurdjevic plays it a little too murkily slick for my taste, even allowing for the relative darkness of her vignette.

Certainly OKAY, but it sometimes feels less like a fun exercise in suggestion than an extended prelude to a grander story that'll have to wait, given the main plot. Still, it's a pleasant tease.

Johanna Ponders Conscription: Drafted #1

People send me PDFs for review. Here's my thoughts on one. Bear in mind that I use a laptop, so my screen space is minimal, and by the time I blow up the pages to be able to read the dialogue, I'm looking at individual panels, not full pages. It's not the most ideal format, but it's effectively free for both of us. Drafted #1 made me wonder how fair it is to consider the publisher when evaluating a comic. The premise is intriguing -- massive earthquakes around the world have killed hundreds of thousands, and as people struggle to cope with the aftermath and the uncertainty of the cause, aliens appear and instruct everyone to work together to go to war.

The Americans rally everyone together to resist, hoo hah!, and a convenience store clerk and some kind of office worker/intern are also introduced, presumably to play roles in later issues. The art is adequate, barely so at times, and the dialogue-heavy scenes are often visually unexciting. The quakes are staged in key political areas, including Jerusalem, which allows the writer to comment on current hot topics. I found myself wondering if the writer had speculated what the next chapter of Watchmen would be like and going on from there, but it's only the most casual of resemblences.

I'd be a lot more excited about the next issue if the publisher hadn't been built on schlocky licensed titles, horror, and Buffy-wannabe goth girl art. (Edit: Thanks to readers for pointing out I forgot to say that this is from Devil's Due.) I just don't have any faith that a serious exploration of sociocultural development and aftereffects of tragedy can come out from them. Instead of giving the artists credit for a good try, I find myself thinking that it's a shallow attempt at relevance, because of who they've chosen to release and brand their story.

On the other hand, it kept my attention enough to finish the issue, rare for this publisher. I rate it Eh. Find out more at The World Needs You Now, a promotional worklog.

The World's Tiniest Giant: Douglas rereads Moore's WildC.A.T.S.

I read Alan Moore's run on WildC.A.T.S. when it was originally published, between 1995 and 1997, and I don't think I'd read any of it again since. I remembered it as Moore seriously phoning it in, and I figured the republication a month or two ago of all of it in a single volume, ALAN MOORE'S COMPLETE WILDC.A.T.S., would be a good opportunity to go back to it and see how it's aged.

The answer: it's still phoned-in, but reasonably Good anyway. The biggest problem Moore was up against is right there in the table of contents: of the 15 "chapters" collected here (#21-34, plus his eight-page wrapup of a couple of loose ends from #50), no two are drawn by the same art team, and only four have a single penciller working on the entire story. Almost everyone draws in something like the Jim Lee and Co. house style--Lee actually turns up for bits of two issues--but none of the artists seem to be particularly invested in the story, Moore's not writing for any particular artist, and there are a lot of basic points of visual continuity that nobody can keep straight.

The most glaring example is Moore's comedy-relief character: Ladytron, a foulmouthed, sociopathic cyborg. (Her appearance here preceded the band of the same name, but I'm betting both of them were named after the Roxy Music song.) Somebody probably drew a model sheet of her at some point, but neglected to clarify where exactly on her face the robot parts begin. Travis Charest's cover for #22 suggests that her entire lower jaw has been replaced by metal; Kevin Maguire's art for that issue's story makes it look like she's just got some metal covering her chin--it starts a bit below the lower lip she suddenly has. And it goes back and forth for the rest of the book.

Anyone looking for evidence for the received wisdom that hot-superhero-book studios of the '90s couldn't actually get a story across should have a look at this book, actually. I didn't realize that Emp is supposed to be really short until about ten pages before the end, because none of his earlier appearances make that clear. A caption reads "Everywhere there are Daemonites. The streets are filthy with them"; the image that accompanies it has part of one Daemonite head in it. (They're hard to draw, I guess.)

A little while later, another caption reads "Giant stalactowers drip from the cavern's ceiling, far above, while the enormous stalagmansions rise to meet them from below, sequined with lights and windows. Though it's big and beautiful and eerie, it looks less like something out of Blake than the designs of Piranesi." Normally, that would violate the show-don't-tell rule--actually, it looks like it was flown in from a Moore panel description--but it's necessary here, because what's actually on panel is a gigantic shot of one character's shoulder and the back of his head, with a couple of buildings that don't look like that at all making a desultory appearance in the background. And the climactic scene where one character accidentally shoots another defies the rules of anatomy, perspective and basic storytelling--I had to rub the page for a little while to make sure there weren't two pages stuck together.

Given the fact that Moore was writing it, we can assume that the problem wasn't that his scripts didn't spell out what he wanted clearly enough. For his first few issues, in fact, Moore's trying to play along with the multiple-artist setup: he sends half the team out into space while the other half's on Earth, and he switches back and forth with his well-weathered cute segues. ("How could they keep us in the dark?" Cut to all-black panel.) Eventually, the space team comes back to Earth just in time for a big crossover ("Fire From Heaven," of which this collection includes only the WildC.A.T.S. tie-ins, conveniently labeled as chapters 7 and 13; I totally forget what happened in the rest and can't tell from the parts reprinted here), and Moore pretty much gives up and concentrates on wrapping up the plots he's already set in motion.

What makes this different from other Alan Moore projects is what's missing from it: this is virtually his only comics work of significant length that doesn't have some kind of formal plan or explicitly defined aesthetic, either for individual segments or for the entire thing. It's just a straightforward mid-'90s superhero story, and what it's "about" is nothing more than impresive poses and colorful phenomena. Unfortunately, Moore can't quite take that seriously--he keeps shifting into the rhythms of his comedy writing--and so his dramatic pyrotechnics don't push his WildC.A.T.S. anywhere thematically. If there's any recurring idea here, it's that violence is meaningless because it's inconsequential. Hadrian and the other androids destroy each other's bodies as a casual workout ("Ha ha ha! You've blown half my face off, you back-worlds hillbilly oaf!"); Zealot's sword-fight, the aforementioned thousand-razor-kisses thing, is a harmless ritual; Ladytron and Overtkill's big fight scene is an excuse for them to plan a date ("Y-you vicious little bitch! You ripped my guts out... w-with your bare hands! So, uh... are you seeing anyone right now?").

What Moore does when he's on automatic is toss out clever little ideas that he doesn't really have to think through: a hotel with a special "low-probability field," so coincidences happen there all the time; an American President-themed restaurant; a church for cyborgs; a bar for superheroes (he's not the only person who thought of that one...). He falls back on familiar tricks--a sequence, early on, where panels of expository conversation alternate with a fight scene with ironically appropriate bits of that conversation overlaid as captions is practically photocopied from Dan and Laurie's fight scene in the alley from Watchmen. And when all else fails, he overwrites: "A machine of steel and women, turning with jewelled precision, so that birth and sex and life and death are captured in this perfect choreography... this awesome quadrille, in all its appalling beauty. In its sacred violence. We score each other's white flesh with a thousand razor kisses...and the precious ruby wine of our existence flows... and mingles... and we are made one within the blood dance." This all appears on half of a two-page spread that's otherwise occupied by five figures and a fancy color effect to cover up for the fact that nobody got around to drawing a background.

So why is this book an italicized Good? Because even on automatic, Moore's got his knack for developing intriguing plot ideas, moving them forward, and making something entertaining happen on every page. The SF plot in the first half is a great little concept: the characters who've apparently spent the earlier part of the series fighting in this huge galactic war discover that it's actually been over for hundreds of years, their side won, and they've been oppressing the other side ever since. (Moore used roughly the same idea in Book 3 of The Ballad of Halo Jones, but it's still a good one.) The story arc involving the group's new members is nicely paced, and a lot of the plot twists are as surprising as they're supposed to be...

But the other reason I went back to re-read comics I didn't think were so hot the first time is that I've spent so much time reading Alan Moore's comics that now I can get some kind of pleasure out of anything he writes--there's one degree of fun that comes from reading his comics themselves, and then there's another degree that comes from figuring out how they fit into his body of work, and seeing how the minor works illuminate the major ones. (This may be the same thing longtime Claremontophiles get out of reading current Claremont comics; maybe you expect him to write about mind control in the same way you expect Kundera to write about tanks rolling into Prague...) Since the ABC line ended (right, the Black Dossier, I'll believe that one when I see it), I've been missing my regular Moore fix and realizing that there aren't too many comics from him left to come. WildC.A.T.S. suffers by comparison to much better Moore, but it's not bad at all--I read the whole thing in one sitting, and didn't even start to get bored--and at the moment I'll take what I can get.

Abhay. 9/26/2007. What?

CABLE AND DEADPOOL #45: They made 45 of these...? Really? This issue is about Deadpool being trapped in a boring comic book. Deadpool and, like, some guy wander around Marvel Comics' World War 2, and meet Captain America and whoever else. They talk, then that's followed by another scene of talking. Usually the talking's just failing to be funny, but at one point, the comic forgets its title and premise and the talking branches out to failing to be serious drama or something. There's a serious scene of Captain America explaining what it's like to be Captain America, which is helpful information to ... to who exactly? If anyone reading this comic is Captain America in their spare time, boy, they are in luck! Meanwhile, in the present day, a bunch of people who aren't identified also have a conversation. There's also a fight-- but I didn't understand how the fight ended much at all, and instead of making me happy that the talking was finally over, it just made me wish they'd get back to having serious conversations about the Nature of Captain America. Anyways, a bunch of crap happens but I couldn't tell if there was a story being told or not-- it didn't seem like it, but I have no idea since there's an arc going on. Cable's not in the issue at all despite the title. Instead, Deadpool hangs out with a 100% rip-off of Arthur from the Tick, which is ... charming. Anyway, I don't really understand what I'm looking at, but it at least tries to be fun even if I'm not sure why this would be fun to anyone. If it lasted 45 issues, someone out there's having a good time; that must be nice. The art's by one of the Ten Ton Studios guys. The backgrounds could be stronger, and there's room for improvement on the storytelling, but it's consistent and the style is easy to read. Okay. ANNIHILATION CONQUEST QUASAR #3: This comic book is about two super-religious lesbians whose relationship is damaged because one of them has turned into a dragon. There are several pinup drawings of the two of them that look like 80's fantasy paperback covers-- that Anne McCaffrey shit or whatever. Anyway, they fight a cool lizard that looks like Freddy Krueger's belly (that design was pretty good). But then the comic becomes a very strange extreme-left-wing fantasy of lesbians setting off a Weapon of Mass Destruction in order to blow up the US Military before the US Military can harm these hairy dark-skinned "noble savages". It's strange stuff but I don't really get comics set in outer space; space opera's my least favorite stuff in comics. I did enjoy the hyper-earnest Declarations of Love ala old Chris Claremont comics. But besides all that, nothing very interesting happened in this issue-- it seemed like whatever weird story is going on here, it was spinning its wheels in this one. That's just a guess though. Also, the lesbian sticking with her girlfriend even after she's become a dragon reminded me of wives who stick by their husbands after crippling injuries, all of which made me feel vaguely guilty in so far as I doubt I'd have that same courage if push came to shove. I doubt I'm that good of a person. I'd rather that Quasar not have throw that in my face; still, I liked how weird this was, so this gets an Okay.

SUPERMAN CONFIDENTIAL #6: Have you ever really sat and thought about Superman's origin? Superman started up in 1932. He grew up on a remote Midwestern farm during the Great Depression. Dirt poor family in a place called Smallville...? I think if you really think about it, and give it some thought, you'd have to come to the conclusion that Superman was probably raised on roadkill. By a "more likely than not" standard, Superman probably cooked up and ate raccoon that some old jalopy ran over, at least once, at least one time. I'm not saying that makes him any less "Super." I'm not a snob-- it was the Great Depression. But I think it's something DC, the CW, John Byrne, Bryan Singer and his manic-depressive gay Jesus movie, that they've all tried to whitewash. I think you're being lied to. I might even go so far as to say bamboozled. Okay.

SUBMARINER #4: Apparently this is a 6 part limited series...? I didn't really understand the recap page, which was a bad omen. It seemed like what it was trying to describe might be pretty neat though-- skeletons and political intrigue and coups and backstabbing. Can you do high-stakes political intrigue in the same comic as has a H.E.R.B.I.E cameo? I'm not sure. It starts off with good kid-friendly gore, and there's an adequate amount of punching throughout the comic. On the other hand, Submariner-- why do they keep giving him his own series? Isn't his whole charm that he's a mean jerk? He's an asshole to everybody-- isn't that his schtick? Isn't he a giant asshole dick whose breath tastes like an ass full of brown shit? Doesn't his asshole sometimes shit smaller assholes which shoot feces onto nuns? Who'd want to read about that kind of guy month in, month out? Not me. The art is in panels which are arranged in a sequence that tells the story; I thought that was a smart choice. The big problem is this ending: it's a cliffhanger which doesn't really work because about 50 other comics have used that exact same cliffhanger this year so far. But they have Namor wear clothes in this, at least. Usually he's half-naked. I don't want to see that. Not that. Please not that. This made me say Okay to clothes on Namor.

ACHEWOOD: This week has been pretty good, at least early on. Not a novel observation but: I like how sometimes the funniest panel will be the second or fourth or whatever, and not the "punchline." On the other hand, I found the September 26th entry pretty shaky but then the punchline swooped down and was awesome and made the whole thing great. I didn't think the September 28th entry was funny at all though. Nothing there spoke to me. Still, Achewood? High highs are worth waiting through the low lows; again, not a novel observation. Still, for the week, my reliance on cliche aside, on the whole, I'd go with Okay.

DEATHBLOW #7: I was reading about death the other day; my personal fear of death is of the "fear of ceasing to exist" variety. I read this theory about the fear of death (which I googled), that it's a result of people seeing their lives as a narrative, and that those more predisposed to see their lives as a narrative are more likely to fear death. So in a way, reading comics (and movies, books, tv, etc.), do you think they all help make us more predisposed to see our own lives as narratives and to worry more about that narrative, and live less in the moment and fear death more? I don't know. Probably not. Just a thought. Your ancient philosopher Epicurus might argue that we should all focus on the moment and aim to maintain a state of tranquility. So I'll give DEATHBLOW #7 an Okay.

The Return of the Retarded -- Hibbs on TV

The real problem for me of the NewSavageCritic is when Jog and Abhay and Lester all post these wonderful, thoughtful essays that really get to the core of things, and make you think wise and deep thoughts, and then I have to post something, and I just know it is going to sound like "Dur dur! DUH! Dur dur dur!" I'm still kind of adjusting to the demands of working Every Weekday -- oh, I know, "Poor poor miserable you!", but I spent more than a decade there with a schedule that was, shall we say, relaxed, so to get back into the 5-days-a-week Grind has been an adjustment. Ultimately, its better for the store, to, y'know, have the owner actually in his store behind the counter, but figuring out what work goes when has been tricky for me.

I've still got to finish this month's order form, but I got through the Marvel books, so I'm down to "the back half of PREVIEWS", and I should be able to polish that tomorrow... but then Carissa (AKA The New Girl) dropped me an email saying a friend of hers died and she needed the weekend off to go to the funeral back east, and suddenly I've got to work Sunday this week too, so I guess I can finish the order form then, which means (he said, having run-on sentence after run-on sentence), that I can chill a little bit today, and do some darn writing.

The New TV season just started, so I've been Mr. Vegetable Man every day after work, doing the full-on Zone Out in front of the glass teat, which, naturally, lowers my IQ even further than the plain exhaustion of working every day, plus it has been beastly hot (for San Francisco) here the last few nights, so it's not like I'm getting a full 8 hours each night now. And I'm even more toast-like today since Anina Bennett asked us for help in moving her from one apartment to another this morning, which means I got maybe 5 hours sleep, then had to haul boxes up a two floor walkup, but the things you do for friends, right?

Which is my vastly long-winded way of saying "Hi, I'm tired and feeling retarded, so let's talk about television!"

THE BIONIC WOMAN: I was never exactly what you might call a fan of the original series -- heck as a boy, I'd lose my card if I hadn't preferred Major Steve Austin, Astronaut, a Man Barely Alive, Etc. to Jamie Summers, who, ferchristsakes, had a parachute accident -- but I figured I should check out the first episode at least.

Sorry I did, really.

I'm too lazy to look up the cast, but, man, what a bland-ass actress they picked for the lead. She's pretty enough, but I didn't feel the slightest amount of empathy for her or her situation, because she's just not engaging. At least Lindsey Wagner had a spark of some kind, right?

"Bionic" here seems to mean some sort of nano-robotic thing or something? They're not exactly clear, really, except that her legs are all glowy (and then they aren't)

The best thing about the show is certainly Katee Sackoff (probably spelled that wrong), but one doesn't get the sense that she's going to be in every episode or anything. And, even if she was, I wouldn't watch just for that. The vague set-up (like who ARE these people, and what are their motivations?) is, I think, supposed to be a "tantalizing mystery", but I needed something more to come back next week, and I didn't find it.

One note, however: the show is supposedly set in San Francisco (at least, that's what the title bar said), but San Francisco doesn't have "fall". That is to say, you're fairly unlikely to find trees that have half of their leaves falling off them. Which you do in virtually every street scene here. I guess this is somewhere in Canada... but why set a show in SF if you're not going to use any exteriors, or try to get the "feel" of the town right at all? AWFUL.

JOURNEYMAN: Had the opposite problem -- much like Gaiman and JRjr's ETERNALS series, there's "too much" San Francisco. I know it is a little hard to believe, but, really, in 90% of The City, you probably can't see either the Golden Gate bridge OR a Cable Car.

If it was like how BULLIT is for a SF person ("wait, how did he get from THAT side of the side to THIS one in under 15 seconds?!?!"), that would be one thing, but they decided to DIGITALLY INSERT the GG bridge into shots that make absolutely no sense. Like the scene where he wakes up in "Golden Gate Park", with the bridge LOOMing over him? No, sir -- just because they both have "Golden Gate" in the title doesn't make it so! (All they had to do was say it was The Presidio, and then it could have scanned just fine) I'm pretty certain there's no spot in the Park where you can see the Bridge, except maybe as a little speck in the distance. Really, just go look at a map!

Anyway, the show itself? I dunno, I liked QUANTUM LEAP quite a bit, so I'm going to give it at least one more episode, but I can't say I was especially grabbed by the pilot. With this kind of a Time Travel show, there needs to be Rules, and I don't get the sense that they've figured them out yet themselves. There's something vaguely clever about having his ex-girlfriend ALSO being a Time Traveller, but they need to at least outline The Rules of how this Works really fast, or I'll be moving on just as fast. EH

CHUCK: Yuck.

HEROES: If there was a show I was looking forward to this season, its definitely the second season of HEROES. So I was pretty disappointed to watch it and think "EH". Part of it was dropping us back in "four months later" without a lot of clarity on what was going on, and with some seeming contradictions -- like, why is Claire in "hiding" in California, while Parkman and Cerebrette are still in NYC, living under Parkman's Real Name? WTH happened with the Petrellis? No one seems to be concerned that Sylar's body vanished? Where's the rest of the cast? And so forth.

I thought the cliffhanger with Hiro last year was very cool -- but in this opening, I was ITCHING to get him back into "the present", because the most probable way that story is going to play out (Hiro *becomes* Kensai, or whatever his name is) is... well, played out already.

Either way, they get 3-4 issu... I mean episodes! of grace, since the first season started off pretty badly, too, but that wasn't what I wanted at all. OK

DEXTER: No, not new, but new to me, since I don't have Showtime. We've got DirecTV, and their "version" of "OnDemand", kinda, is channel 101, where they're showing 2 eps a night of the series. They're clearly hacked to pieces -- all of the swearing is overdubbed like "That mother-lovin' piece of spit is a real ashbowl!", and I'm guessing they cut out all of the titties, and a fair amount of penetrative violence, but, regardless, I'm REALLY enjoying this show. I hope the last two episodes tonigth wrap up things in a satisfying way. I've even ordered the novel the show is based upon from the library because I liked the show so much. VERY GOOD.

One last thing, apropos of nothing at all, other than that whole "retail intelligence" thing: After 18 years, I decided to cancel our Yellow Pages display ad this year, and see what happens. Given that the #1 question we get asked on a phone call is "What are your hours?", #2 "Where are you located?" and #3 is "Do you buy comics?", all of which are clearly in our display ad; and given that I tend to answer "Who ELSE buys comics" with "look in the yellow pages and call one after another", and that that usually gets a blank stare in return, I'm no longer convinced that America 2007 even knows that they HAVE a Yellow Pages any longer.

Right, that's my Retarded Ramblings.... what did YOU think?

-B

My Life is Choked with Comics #10 - Starstruck

This one's for Johnny Bacardi, who first told me about this series. And let me tell you, this is the kind of comic you'll probably need someone to tell you about, because not many other roads lead to it.

I'm going to guess that a bunch of you haven't even heard of Elaine Lee, who wrote the comic; maybe the name's rattling around in the back of your head, but nothing of use is cohering. Hey, I don't blame you. Just about every comic she ever wrote is out of print, after all. While I'll take a little room there to equivocate -- she does have a story floating around out there in Charles Vess' The Book of Ballads collection -- I do believe all her bigger works are pure longbox fodder. Most of the smaller ones too.

It's something nobody likes to think about, really. Someone's entire body of comics work sinking down, left to the funnybook subculture of bin divers, no one piece able to latch on to a famed or renowned predecessor/successor by the same person. Down, down into the bog. It's almost as unpleasant a thought as somebody working on a comics project for over a decade, only to see it fade from view. Unlucky, without embrace, and forlorn.

But the former has apparently happened to Elaine Lee, and the latter certainly happened to Starstruck. That's too bad, because Lee's writing on that comic was intriguing and ambitious; Starstruck is just the type of comic that some today would possibly be considering a classic of the form, had its full, 500+ page length ever been published. But pages came out in various forms, at various times, often taking on an individual character that seemed to match their then-current environment. In other words, there was a Starstruck of 1984 that was very different from the Starstruck of 1991. Maybe inevitable, considering the long path a comic of its go-for-baroque type was bound to follow back in the day.

Let me explain.

As often happens with these things, Lee was involved in other arts before she began writing comics. She'd been a working actress since the mid-'70s, and eventually scored a 1980 Daytime Emmy nomination for a supporting role on the long-running NBC soap opera The Doctors (her flawless soap opera character name: Mildred Trumble). She also wrote plays with her sister, Susan Norfleet Lee, who remains an actress and a comedienne today (sans the "Lee"). In 1979, the pair met an artist by the name of Michael William Kaluta; Lee became impressed with a new art book that Kaluta had contributed to, The Studio, and asked him to participate in a new sci-fi stage project.

I'm being coy. I suspect that most of you have heard of Kaluta - he'd been active in professional comics since 1969, including a much-admired stint on DC's The Shadow in 1973-74, and had spent the mid-to-late '70s working with fellow artists Jeffrey Jones, Barry Windsor-Smith and Berni(e) Wrightson (who'd later draw comics about Batman punching a religion in the face), in a shared space they called The Studio. Which was also the name of that book, you see, since it compiled some of each artist's works from the period.

So anyway, the play was titled Starstruck, and it debuted in NYC in 1980. It was written by the Lee sisters and a man named Dale Place, who was at one point Elaine Lee's husband. Kaluta handled the poster art, plus costume and set designs (with some realization aid from the aforementioned Charles Vess). The show would eventually run again in 1983, and the script book is still around. But even as initial work on the show went forward, Lee and Kaluta began formulating a plan to expand the work, quite greatly, into the medium of comics.

I can only think of two other comics off hand that began on the stage: Kings in Disguise and Rich Johnston's Holed Up (and I think the latter actually began as an unproduced script for a sitcom pilot). Both expanded greatly, I understand, once freed from floorboards. I haven't read the Starstruck script either; I've heard it's a silly comedy with songs. But I don't think either of those other works exploded in breadth like Starstruck did. It bears the "created by" mark of Elaine Lee and Michael Wm. Kaluta. It is copyright and trademark them. Lee is the sole credited writer, though some of the material gives plot credit to Kaluta as well. The break from the prior work is clean, as is the break from the prior medium; Starstruck the comic is fully and wholly a comic.

Lee and Kaluta hooked up with one Sal Quartuccio, publisher of various prints and posters, whose S.Q. Productions released a six-piece b&w Starstruck illustration portfolio the year of the show's debut, and eventually facilitated an initial publication of the comics version in Spain (which I haven't read). The work was later published in North America by Heavy Metal magazine, in serial form, 1982-83 (didn't read that either). But that wasn't the end of the beginning (luckily for me) - Marvel Comics took note, and compiled the Heavy Metal material into a 1984 publication titled Starstruck: The Luckless, the Abandoned and Forsaked. It was also Marvel Graphic Novel #13, in case you feel the urge to file it behind Dazzler: The Movie.

Indeed, it's worth noting that many of Marvel's "graphic novels" of the time were often just overlong and oversized Marvel-type comics, with a smattering of 'mature' content pressed in. Others had a way of feeling like extended submissions to Epic Illustrated, with an emphasis on visual aplomb. The Starstruck graphic novel isn't anything like that, despite having run in the magazine that inspired Epic Illustrated - it's layered, layered, layered, yet very tightly wound, seeing a large cast of characters age over the course of only 74 pages of story. Pages are packed with stuff, sometimes three streams of narration at once, with captions wandering from song lyrics to poems to real and fake famous quotes to myriad narrations to conversations occurring off-panel. It's no wonder the book is dedicated to Robert Altman and Thomas Pynchon (now if only I could puzzle out that Borges mention in Super Boxers).

The book is structured as a series of vignettes, ranging from one to sixteen pages in length, moving forward in time over the span of 52 "cycles." Each segment comes equipped with its very own title, timecode, discreet location id, and commemorative statement or quote that likely gets alluded to somewhere else in the larger story. The first and last statements of the book tell us the difference between allusion and illusion - there's plenty of both at work.

I suspect the Starstruck graphic novel was probably tough reading for a lot of people at the time. It's still kind of tricky today, until you realize that the book isn't trying to tell a whole story, just a story, rich with incident and cross-reference and sheer joyous worldbuilding. If there's anything in comics I can easily compare it to, it'd have to be Howard Chaykin's 1986 book Time2: The Epiphany (which was also First Graphic Novel #8, in case you feel the urge to file it behind The Secret Island of Oz), which was meant to be the first installment of a series of comics albums, leaving Chaykin (plus letterer Ken Bruzenak & colorist Steve Oliff, both of whom would work on Starstruck at different times) free to pack in as much graphic overload as possible, hopping from place to place, breathless, not bothering to introduce the 'main' character until a quarter of the way through, all in the service of occasion. Of being somewhere.

But it must be noted that Lee's and Kaluta's work on Starstruck slightly predates even Chaykin's seminal American Flagg!, despite Kaluta's controlled, eye-catching layouts (mostly devoid of the decorative touches and curvilinear framing motifs often associated with his illustration work) and letterer Todd Klein's multitude of fonts seeming 'modern' in much the same way as that trendsetting classic, if somewhat less typographically intense. Kaluta's in-panel art, though, is much cleaner than peer and fellow Shadow artist Chaykin's, with candied technology and costuming everywhere, like in this piece, mixing Kaluta's beloved pulp cover influences with whimsical, Art Nouveau touches.

Lee's writing can be whimsical too; Starstruck retains a good deal of humor, often adopting a flippant posture before grand themes. As its small stories move forward, certain groups of characters emerge as primary, all of them women. First, there's a trio of marginalized women, the luckless/abandoned/forsaken of the subtitle.

We meet Galatia 9, a slight, tough woman, erudite and lusty, who became a space sailor after accidentally reaching the stars in the midst of a socio-religious ceremony. She's an Amazon, with bow skills and missing breast to boot. She teams up with Brucilla the Muscle, a brawny, lusty, good-natured former pilot for the Americadian Space Brigade, who got tossed out of the service in a tragic egging misadventure that claimed 26 lives. She's a Valkyrie, a Brünnhilde, and wears a likeably clichéd iron skirt for most of the story. In this postmodern text, all the fragments of fiction mingle. Finally, there's Erotica Ann, the final model in a destroyed line of sex androids, which means that she's picked up the idea of 'mortality' (no longer being part of a collective with a single goal), and has perhaps developed a soul. Unlike the other two women, she isn't all that lusty, and actually doesn't have a ton of personality, but she's both an object of physical lust and nostalgic, collector's lust, being a rare piece and all.

These three women are often contrasted with a second group of powerful, but no less human(ish) women. There's Indira Lucrezia Ronnie Lee Ellis Bajar, unpopular child of the Borgia-like Bajar clan of dictators, arch-capitalists and damaged man-children, who's become a famous sci-fi writer as "Ronnie Lee Ellis" and formed her very own religion. She's keeping an eye on Prime Minister Glorianna of Phoebus, a former revolutionary and sex andriod CEO who's got plans of her own, dressed in the halo of liberty. Also lurking around is Glorianna's wicked sister Verloona, clad in Jazz Age flapper attire. She the very embodiment of vanity and consumption, and a great fan of the "Running in Place" system of sapping the life force out of donors to preserve one's vitality. Her favorite targets are Galactic Girl Guides, lil' scouts of the future who've taken to learning the real ways of survival: cheating, stealing, and miscellaneous chicanery.

All of these characters, and several more, bounce around Lee's and Kaluta's world, sometimes brushing up against little and big illusions (and countless allusions). Religion, militarism and big business are always revealed to be tools of control aimed at the lessers of the universe, though even the greaters can hardly control their own family affairs. Some of the graphic novel's small sections form lovely little stories, like the take of Ronnie's brother Kalif, who took to loving an Erotic Annie doll behind his father's back, spilling all his secrets:

"Dad took me on a hunting trip to New Siberia. It was so cold that my balls disappeared and I thought they were gone forever and I started to cry and told Dad that my balls were gone and he was so mad that he locked me in the room with my collection of vital organs for three malton units and I threw up."

Naturally, this relationship soon spirals into ruin and overcompensation, eventually leading to the destruction of all Erotic Annies save for one, which sees the Soul escape a seriocomic nightmare of male sex frustration, which itself powers both Kalif's and Ronnie's later actions. Everything in this book, even slight asides or minor characters, have a way of becoming something more important later.

Even then, there's a mystery to Starstruck that's born from its short, serial-ready chapters, perfectly willing to place all of its external influences right on the surface, yet remaining secretive about what it all might mean, and how everone has touched everyone else. As one character says in a in a later incarnation of the series, "The list of players read like a who's who in the social sector and they all had the rule book."

But wait, what's that? "Later incarnation?"

The year after the release of the Starstruck graphic novel, Epic Comics began publishing a six-issue continuation of the work (that's 1985-86). Lee and Kaluta remained as primary authors, with Lee even doing the colors for the first two issues, while the aforementioned Ken Bruzenak did the letters. With issue #3, the aforementioned Steve Oliff took over the colors, and John Workman became letterer.

"All right," you say, "so the Starstruck graphic novel was a big introduction, which explains its elusive nature, and then the series finished it off, right?"

The mutation was somewhat more drastic than that.

I get the feeling that Lee and Kaluta may have wanted their comic to work smoothly in whatever format it happened to exist in at the moment; as a result, while the first issue of the Epic series more-or-less follows the 'short chapters' model of the graphic novel, it's more a stylistic coda than a new beginning. It even concludes with a bravura sequence in which Ronnie explains the thematic and literal relationships between the various cast members through an extended set of card game metaphors, Kaluta packing familiar poses and pictures from the prior incarnation of the story into long panels, for extra iconographic kick.

After that, Starstruck suddenly stretches itself out, for longer stories that flow from issue to issue, much of it following a seemingly minor bartender character (what'd I tell ya?) investigating (or stumbling into) the cast's interrelationships as part of an excellent noir pastiche. It's not just grand plots; I mean, characters turn out to be clones of other characters' grandmothers. Complexities pile up, but the underlying sadness of Lee's story becomes more patent, as all of the relationships in the universe seem fueled by long-ago battles and deep chasms between families. But the dead rise again in Lee's world, and the underappreciated begin taking steps toward betterment.

As a result, the web of relationships Lee creates seems grandly symbolic of the ties that bind the mighty and the meek together in the human experience, little comedies becoming big tragedies, and vice versa. By the end of the Epic series, a resting (but not ending) point is reached, and the thorough reader, with all of the comics spread out before him or her, can isolate dozens of little effects that rippling across characters and into the lengthy world encyclopedia sections in the back, which never replace the comic itself, mind you. The beauty of Starstruck as a comic is that it arranges all of this information in an intuitive enough graphic manner that, say, a fight sequence occurring in the art, a fancy-font religious chant going on with a side character, and various song lyrics from various sources provided via caption, can all draw extra force from spatial proximity and ironic contrast that'd be impossible in any other medium. Not only was this well ahead of the curve in terms of sci-fi comics from Marvel, it's still unique in the mad, uncompromising drive that Lee and Kaluta bring to their million voices. Rings clear today.

However, as I mentioned, the comic stopped rather than ended. After the sixth Epic issue, the characters and creators moved to a backup slot in Comico's Rocketeer Adventure Magazine (The Adventures of Brucilla the Muscle, Galactic Girl Guide), where Dave Stevens' pulp throwback work must have seemed like a nice fit for Kaluta's pulp-fueled art, at least. Only two issues were released by Comico, in 1988 and 1989. Of course, the creators were doing other things too. Lee had actually been working with Charles Vess (him again!) since 1982 on titles like Eclipse's Sabre. Kaluta had many illustration jobs, including a noteworthy illustrated edition of the prose novel Metropolis. But eventually, the Rocketeer magazine wound up at Dark Horse (which eventually published one more issue), and Starstruck found itself revived again.

This time, it was called Starstruck: The Expanding Universe. The plan was that Starstruck was going to be finished for good, now that it was 1990 and readers were totally ready for literary comics and stuff (or that's what I got from Mark Askwith's introduction to issue #1). It'd last for 12 Dark Horse issues in total, with every four issues forming a 'book' in a Starstruck trilogy. In total, over 300 new pages would be added to the work already done. It'd all be in b&w too.

Only four issues (or one 'book') of this incarnation of the series were released, 1990-91. There was a lot of new art -- over 100 pages worth -- and it surely expanded the universe. Of those four issues, the original graphic novel and issue #1 of the Epic series are covered, which sealed that first Epic issue in place as a coda, and would even have set the rest of the Epic series apart from the rest of the work as a new unit, thus excusing the switches in narrative style from tight to broader. It was clever.

But cleverness alone can't always help the nature of comics. Reading through these expanded stories, stuffing characters who'd be introduced much later into the first few pages and greatly stretching dialogues and motivations, it's evident that Lee's outlook as a writer had changed a bit since the whole thing began in the early '80s. She seems more interested in conversational conveyance of information, with more emotion being worn on characters' sleeves and less puckish enigma. Yet, Kaluta can't very well redraw the whole thing - that would be absurdly work-intensive. The old must coexist with the new; perhaps a natural state when working for a long time on a long comic. I personally think that Chris Ware's most undervalued talent is that of assembler, always able to carefully put new books together from bits of old ones, with every project retaining a stunning coherence, like each state of the work is its natural state.

Starstruck doesn't so that. The short bursts of mystery and formal play from the older material sit uneasily beside the more direct newer material, causing a bumpy reading experience, especially if you've read the older versions. The work seems heavier in explanation, and less wonderfully dense for it. If the older Starstruck remains bracingly current, the expanded universe brings it down a bit to the then-present.

But that's the path a long work takes sometimes, in an environment that wasn't built to sustain many works like it.

Work kept up for a while longer, even after publication stopped on the Dark Horse issues. The ill-fated Tundra made plans to publish a five-issue comics 'n activities funtime distraction series titled The Adventures of the Galactic Girl Guards, which apparently did not involve the participation of Lee, but did intend to feature additional art by Linda Medley and Phil Trumbo - the project was never released. Meanwhile, development began on a movie spin-off of the initial Starstruck stage play for no less than Walt Disney Productions, with Kaluta providing everything from visual designs to toy prototypes. It too never took off. A new Starstruck short was completed by Lee & Kaluta for Heavy Metal, which later appeared in 1995, via the initial volume of Skin Tight Orbit, Lee's erotic comics anthology for NBM.

Actually, Kaluta's homepage indicates in his biographical sketch that he was still working on new Starstruck pages in 1996, at which time Marlowe & Co. (which you'll recall published Kyle Baker's The Cowboy Wally Show the same year) was expected to release a collected edition of the first Dark Horse 'book.' Again, the project was not realized, and that was that. Starstruck was never seen again. Luckless, abandoned, forsaked.

Could it have been different today? A comic of the type, populated largely by strong, well-rounded female characters, written by a woman determined to punch the medium into a form that suited her grand design? In a bookstore-friendly market? I also don't know if the broader-than-ever female readership of comics would affect it much - Starstruck is like the mirror image of much of the manga that's so popular today, which also often long, but sleek and decompressed, and easy in narration, and broad in comparison with he emotional beats. That's the popular stuff.

But if there's any broad point I'd like to make, it's that a simple comic is a big enough thing to create, and that a long comic often demands an extremely unwieldy process of creation, and the final result is inevitably dinged and scraped by the extended act of creation. Yet, by looking at these several Starstrucks, we can see the growth of the work across the comics platforms, flailing glamorously in the direction of completion.

Lee worked on a number of odd projects before and after the Dark Horse version of the comic ended. She did a six-issue miniseries for Marvel called Steeltown Rockers (1990), and a two-issue project for Epic titled The Transmutation of Ike Garuda (1991-92). She moved to DC for the six-issue miniseries Ragman: Cry of the Dead (1993-94). At Dark Horse she did some license work on Indiana Jones and the Spear of Destiny (1995). She was present for DC's short-lived Helix sci-fi imprint with the series Brainbanx (1997). And she found some continuing series success through her Vertigo project with William Simpson, Vamps (1994), which spawned Vamps: Hollywood and Vein (1996) and Vamps: Pumpkin Time (1998-99). Hell, the first one of those got a trade collection! Which is out of print.

Lee wrote for television into the 21st century, once again teamed with her sister. They've written a book together. Kaluta, for that matter, has also been elusive from comics, save for some cover art. Sometimes it's like it's all gone, but that's not really true. The work is still out there, waiting to be pointed at. Anything can be found, here in the future. Even if Starstruck was never finished, it can still act as entertainment and instruction, to those willing to accept its eccentricities, whether by design or by fate.

Jeff Also Briefly Mentions Doctor 13, then Proceeds to Babble Even More Melodramatically.

This essay is about failure. Specifically, it's a response to Abhay's brilliant review of Dr. 13: Architecture & Mortality by Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang, a review which also--among other things--is about failure: specifically, the failure of the "nostalgicore" genre (Brian Nicholson's term, not Abhay's; Abhay just defined the genre and called for a "core" name) to prevent the growing coarseness of the mainstream comics industry; the failure of an online critic to critique a shitty comic without contributing to the buzz behind it; and, most damningly--if I'm interpreting his final paragraphs correctly--the failure of those opposed to current trends in the U.S. to present any sort of dissent worth noticing, and/or the failure of the U.S. media to notice such dissent, such that the "don't tase me, bro" dude becomes a brief symbol of so much that's wrong with this country (which if I had to enumerate would be: police brutality, absurd attentionwhoreishness , the inability of most of the Internet to process anything other than ironically, and the brevity of the public attention span so that such things are dismissed as tired before they're ever truly dealt with). My essay about failure will cover all of the above and also, apparently, my failure to write a short, succinct sentence. Also covered will be my failure to organize my essay coherently, and this failure will actually take the visual form of three centered asterisks, like this:

***

So when you see three centered asterisks, you can rest assured I am acknowledging my own failure to properly organize my essay.

***

First, I think it's pretty obvious that we truly live in a golden age of complaining. The Internet, email, cell phones, talk radio--I can complain about something within seconds of it happening to me, if not to my wife then to my Twitter network, or the people on the message boards to which I belong. And let me tell you, I am not complaining about the complaining: I am incredibly grateful for all the many outlets open for my endless kvetching, whining and fitful tirade making. If you think about it, back in, I dunno, the '80s, the only people who were able to complain openly and at great length nearly anywhere were sports fans. My father, a lifelong fan of the San Francisco 49ers, did nothing but complain about that team until, thanks to Joe Montana, they suddenly became a championship team which pleased my dad but disappointed me: now that he couldn't complain about them, I talked with him that much less.

And this is my first point in response to Abhay's essay: when he says, "People who care about how charmless and talentless DCU comics in the present are? Stopped reading them, or at least I'd hope they have as that's clearly the most rational response," it seems to me to miss some very important point about human nature--or rather, it doesn't offer a consideration of human nature to superhero comic book fans we tend to offer to fans of other interests. No one but the most beleaguered domestic partner ever says to the complaining sports fan, "Well, if you're so disgusted with the way the [insert your favorite sports team here] are playing, why do you still follow them?" Interestingly, the response to that question would likely be the same: either, "You wouldn't understand," or, if the person responding was being candid, "Because I've been a following them since I was little kid."

It's what kind of drives me crazy about some of the crosstalk about superhero comics on the Internet: people are considered foolish for blindly following X-Men or Batman or Superman from the time they were little to the present, but is it really any more foolish than those dudes who go to football games painted blue and spend insane amounts of money on autographs and jerseys and box seats? It'd be nice if we could retire the idea that rationality should be applied to comic book fandom , the same way no one ever expects a sports fan to be rational about their favorite team or their favorite sport. It'd also be nice if the public at large complained about superhero fans being idiots for their passion as rarely as they do about sports fans.

I am also particularly fond of the superhero/sports team analogy because it allows some quick and easy ways to sum up long-time superhero comic book readers (some fans follow the team, and some fans follow the players, which means two fans can have utterly different experiences while watching exactly the same game) and in part because it allowed me to explain what I did for so long on the Savage Critic--it wasn't reviewing, exactly, so much as it was sports writing: people would come to the site and read reviews of books they'd already read to engage in some Monday morning quarterbacking, or to get an idea books they'd missed: finding out what had happened, so to speak, in the game they'd missed. For a very brief period, I considered writing an essay arguing that superhero comics weren't art, they were sports, and if everyone would just stop confusing them with real art, 90% of our contentious arguments would disappear and people could talk about being fans of certain writers or illustrators without having to make the claim that those writers or illustrators were "artists."

I also liked this idea, because it meant I could compare the direct market to those big schools I've read about where 80% of the funding goes to the athletic department (superheroes) and 20% went to the band (indie comics), the library (classic reprints) and the horribly underpaid, disenfranchised, potentially pervy teaching staff (Joe Matt).

Ultimately, though, I decided against it: not just because I was slandering Joe Matt for no good reason, but because there are enough examples of superhero comics as genuine art that it'd just be the grounds for another endless set of arguments. In fact, I'll go in the opposite direction and suggest that any medium able to construct a meta-work is an art: you can have literature about literature, you can have painting about painting, you can have nostalgicore --superhero comics about superhero comics--but you cannot have a football game about a football game. So, things that are unable to discuss themselves are not art? Discuss.

***

Years and years ago, I read a Joseph Campbell book describing how a group of seventeenth century monks explained how, precisely, Christ's sacrifice redeemed mankind. As I recall, it was a charming theory that suggested Christ on the cross was like bait on a hook, and his sacrifice lured Satan/Leviathan to try to ingest him, at which point God the Fisherman yanked Leviathan out of the "water," freeing all of us from evil being able to gobble us up in the future. What struck me most about this theory is how much it sounded like the stuff of Marvel letter pages from the '70s, where people tried for no-prizes for pointing out mistakes and then suggesting ideas that explained the mistakes: which is to say, that's the point I realized reading superhero comic books stemmed essentially from a religious impulse. Sports fandom, comics fandom--hell, probably all fandom since the word "fan" is likely short for the word "fanatic," deriving from a Latin word meaning "insane but divinely inspired"--stems from this impulse: the desire to belong to something bigger than oneself, and to participate in a ritual that is given power by the nature of one's belief. Weirdly, I don't believe sports stem from a religious impulse, but sports fandom does.

This brings us to one of the central paradoxes of religion, if you ask me--religion draws its power from the religious impulse, but it must contain the religious impulse in order to survive. There must be something that distinguishes the priests from the masses to which they administer, a closeness to something chosen as the vestment of spiritual power and, for the religion to survive, it must be the religion that defines what that thing is, not the masses. Moses and Jehovah raged against the building of the golden calf; The Catholic church burned any number of monks for heresy; the Pope decides what's a mortal sin, not the masses. Similarly, although the sports and comics industries need their fans to survive, a contentiousness exists between the owners and fans: the DeBartolos decide where the 49ers call home, not the fans; Joe Quesada decides whether Spider-Man stays married, not the fans. (And yes, I just compared the Pope to the DeBartolo family and Joe Quesada .) Although there are other factors in the struggle--sports teams, religions, and comic companies have all proven all susceptible to the lure of short-term profits--you cannot underestimate the not-quite-conscious battle for control that occurs between the insane and divinely inspired ones and the keepers of what they covet. For desire to remain desire, it must promise satisfaction and yet must also always go, in some crucial way, unsatisfied.

***

Which brings me, in a roundabout way, to Doctor 13: Architecture & Mortality by Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang. In it, Doctor 13, a man who refuses to believe in anything supernatural or irrational, no matter what evidence is presented to him, finds himself joining forces with a number of wildly unbelievable allies--a ghost pirate, a vampire, an intelligent caveboy, and a talking Nazi gorilla, among others--on a quest to meet The Architects: not their makers, but rather their unmakers , the men who will remove Doctor 13 and his companions from reality. In the end, Doctor 13 is able to defeat The Architects by refusing to believe in their power, but he is unable to defeat an even greater force--the readers--who in the end remove the good Doctor from reality by reaching the end of the book. And I guess this is the second point in response toAbhay's essay: the conclusion to his review is, "I enjoyed Doctor 13: Architecture & Mortality-- it's a well made book. But seeing talented people spit in the wind-- it's talented spit, but my point is the wind's a motherfucker. Basically. That's my point." For me, the end of Doctor 13: Architecture & Mortality suggests Azzarello and Chiang seem perfectly aware of this in a way other creators of nostalgiacore are not: in Doctor 13, the needs of the reader do destroy these characters, even if not in the way Abhay discusses. Azzarello and Chiang, it seems to me, are spitting in the wind deliberately, and for the same reasons I used to spit in the wind when I was a kid: to see if I could get it to hit the people next to me (in my case, my younger brothers; in Azzarello and Chiang's case, the four writers of 52) and in doing so amuse myself.

This sense of self-amusement, something that usually frustrates me in Azzarello's work (I never feel half as delighted with his writing as he seems to be) works startlingly well here, perhaps because the self-awareness that manifests itself in all the puns, visual gags, and relentless verbal slapstick, is par for the course in a work of metacommentary. Although I would've recommended this work just for the splendor of Cliff Chiang's artwork and Patricia Mulvihill's colors, I'm happy to report Azzarello's in fine form here. But I do wonder if, like Moore, Morrison, Waid & Ross or other Nostalgicore creators, he actually feels for the state of current affairs where goofy characters are conveniently excised, or if he's merely having a laugh. Certainly this quote from the last part of the Azzarello and Chiang's multipart cross-platform interview:

Well, I'm not into comics as much as you think. But I am into music. I needed to spill my love for something into this book to make it work. So I used music. I guess I needed to honestly geek out, to be able to get that geek out of the readers. Who knows why we love what we love?

suggests that, like Doctor 13, his scorn for the Architects comes more from pragmatism (how's a writer who doesn't much care about standard superheroes continue to find work when everything that's not a standard superhero is being taken away?) and obstinate rationality (a talking Nazi gorilla isn't more absurd than a guy in long underwear who flies and fights crime--they're both equally absurd) than the sort of mad love that drives Grant Morrison or Alan Moore to bemoan the fate of Animal Man or Mandrake the Magician. I don't think that's a bad thing, mind you, but I think it's worth noting how Doctor 13: Architecture & Mortality distinguishes itself from Pictopia or Flex Mentallo.

***

By the way, I want to say I agree with what K.L. Anderson points out in the comments, that Abhay's review of Dr. 13: Architecture & Mortality is quite possibly the best thing posted here on the Savage Critic, and all of my points (which so far seem to disagree with Abhay's) aren't a dismissal of that work. In fact, I was so incredibly energized by that essay (and also the section of this entry from Dick Hyacinth that discusses it), I wanted to respond. Just making that clear, before I go on to mangle more of my points, and perhaps pick more at his fine piece of work. Please remember that, as the kids today say, it really knocked me on mykeister.

***

Ironically, for someone that just spent a few hundred words defending the rights of people to continue buying and bitching about superhero books they're not happy with, I'm a huge proponent of walking away from superhero books for large periods of time. From 1989 to 1992, when I was living in Los Angeles, I shopped at Golden Apple every month and bought nearly nothing of a superheroic nature. I mean, I bought Doom Patrol, Sandman, and a few other Vertigo titles, but I couldn't care less about the Marvel books (this was during the rise of the Image artists) and was incredibly indifferent to DC (this was when everyone was dying and having their back broken, I think?). I mean, there may have been some titles I followed (I remember picking up that second Legends of the Dark Knight arc because Grant Morrison wrote it) but for the most part? I stayed away from superhero books. There just wasn't anything interesting.

Apart from causing some blind spots in my knowledge later when I worked the counter at CE (people would ask about Darkhawk and I would just stare at them blankly), this presented no problems with me at all. Fantagraphics was on a roll, not only with Love & Rockets (which I've followed from way back), but Bagge and Clowes moved from Neat Stuff and Lloyd Llewellyn to Hate and Eightball, respectively, which were tremendous improvements. I picked up an issue of Arcade that finally--FINALLY--made me "get" Crumb: since I realized I loved his middle to late period work, I slowly bought up a collection of Weirdo which turned me on to other artists. Julie Doucet and Chester Brown. There was plenty of stuff to keep me coming to the comic book store, and my knowledge and love for the form grew.

I'll be honest. I'm kind of at that point again: I brought home twelve comic books from CE last week, only seven of which were superhero books (and this was, frankly, from two weeks worth of releases) and none of which I've yet read. But I also bought (and read) the Doctor 13 trade, and Confessions of a Blabbermouth, and Hitoshi Iwaaki's amazing Parasyte, and Fumi Yoshinaga's Flower of Life. My passion for manga, which started out a few years back as a mixture of curiosity and embarrassment (I was mortified I could work in a comic book store and have such a huge amount of ignorance about such a fast-growing part of the market), is keeping me coming back to the store the same way that next issue of Eightball or Dirty Plotte or Weirdo did when I was in L.A. And just as I read Doom Patrol and Animal Man and Sandman and what have you, I'm still picking up Iron Fist and Ultimate Spider-Man and the modern day equivalent of what have you.

I figure some time will pass and more superhero books will come out that I care about. I'm fine for when that happens. But I thought it important to say to those who would care to hear it (and I know this is mostly preaching to the converted at this point) that it can actually be kind of a relief to leave the religion in the hands of the money-changers and see where else you can find your passion. In some ways, it was easier back in the '90s because the alternative market still mimicked the superhero market, and Bagge and Clowes and Brown published more than annually, but there's such an amazing backlog of material out there now, it's not going to be that hard to find something. And maybe it's time to look, for reasons I hope to explain below.

*** 

Because there is another reason we complain, apart from the spiritual component to which I alluded earlier. In the same way that hope is an admission of present misery, a complaint is an expression of powerlessness: someone who complains is either powerless to change something, or chooses not to change something (an abdication of power). The complaining on the Internet and elsewhere about seemingly everything is an expression of powerlessness, which is part of why I think Americans are probably bigger complainers now then we've ever been: no matter how we vote, no matter what we say we want, no matter what we do, we've reached a point where things aren't changing. It doesn't matter how mad people get about health care in this country, about voter fraud, about special interests and lobbyists and soft money and corporate interests and media spinelessness: it's not going to change because the people with the money don't want it to, and as long as they have the money in the banks, and the legislators in their pocket, and the media in their corner, we can't really do dick about it, other than (a) something stupid and near-meaningless, or (b) something utterly ineffectual, like bitch.

(To clarify that first option, I remember when the first big protests against the Iraq War started up here in San Francisco and how stupid it seemed: I couldn't imagine anything that would amuse the Republicans in power more than San Francisco shutting itself down. Until we can work out the kinks in the whole "Think Globally, Riot Locally" program, I'd say dissent is probably gonna stay a big old problem here in the U.S.)

I think this is part of the reason why Abhay's review hit me so powerfully: I can feel that link between Nostalgicore and the Countdown to Infinite Crisis Special and the "Don't Tase Me, Bro" guy: John Kerry didn't do anything other than let an annoying attention whore get tased for the same reason the creators of Nostalgicore can write eulogies for their beloved characters but can't revive them--powerlessness. And Abhay complained, and we responded, about a very shitty comic because it gives us a feeling of power although that feeling is itself an expression of powerlessness. And that powerlessness is what we feel when we get frustrated with "the buzz."

Which is why I think maybe those who find ourselves bitterly complaining about superhero books should, if that's the case, try something else for a while--to see if I'm wrong. Maybe we don't complain about everything as a way to blow off steam over our ultimate powerlessness in the face of our crazy-ass culture; that, just as BrianAzzarello decided to spit into the wind at the publishing company behind him, maybe it's just god-damned fun to do so. (There are times when this is god-damned fun, certainly.)

***

Or maybe we're just so god-damned spoiled and entitled that a terrible issue of Amazing Spider-Man seems like an exemplar of everything that's wrong in the world today?

***

Or maybe we recognize how wrong and flat and fake "Don't tase me, bro" sounds and we highlight that by putting it in a remix of an M.C. Hammer song?

***

Or maybe desire, in order to remain desire, must always in some crucial way go unsatisfied, and it's just easier now than it's ever been to express the frustration that results from our mostly-thwarted passion. In some ways, it would be comforting for me to think that?

***

But maybe we're getting on our computers every night and throwing the revolution we cannot have--not against the oppressors we cannot see and cannot name (in the same way Doctor 13 cannot see or name his readers), but against their easier-to-face analogues: the Architects who hold our superheroes and our superstars and our season passes from us. After all, the flames of spiritual passion are frequently fanned by material causes, and perhaps we find ourselves playing out our passions where people without recourse have chosen throughout history to play out their passions and desires--in the stories and struggles of mythical creatures, those mostly-imaginary beings we dimly recognize, in some unacknowledged corner of our hearts, as gods.

And if we turned away from them, and the passion remained, we might know.

Hooray: A film and a comic for 9/19. Jog.

So I did wind up seeing Eastern Promises, the new David Cronenberg thing, and it was good stuff. I liked it more than A History of Violence, which can be considered a companion film of sorts, given that both pictures see Viggo Mortensen as a man of secrets caught up in the world of organized crime, with violence meeting violence and family ties frayed.

The prior film struck me as really heavy-handed and sorta banal with its mannered small town American archetypes giving way to bloodletting... it was like a lot of high-fiving and shouting WE HAVE ACHIEVED SUBTEXT without anyone pausing to check if the subtext had much of interest in it. Oh, I enjoyed the contrasting sex scenes as much as everyone else, and it had a good ending. Like, the whole last 15 or so minutes with William Hurt were pretty swell, in that they shove the movie halfway into farce and really play up the awkwardness of person-to-person combat. I don't even think there's any music in those scenes, just Viggo Mortensen and random goons tumbling around rooms and stuff.

Actually, those were also the only parts where I picked up much John Wagner flavor, although I haven't read the original comic and I think Cronenberg changed most of it anyway. Hmm.

So, Eastern Promises was better for me. It's leaner and more subdued, and doesn't draw so much attention to its themes, although they're pretty tightly wound into the story. This time Viggo's a driver for the Russian mob in London, standing around and looking cool in a real movie star type of performance, trying to work his way up in the ranks of crime while keeping his hands sorta clean of the nastiest parts of the business. But concerned midwife Naomi Watts keeps butting her head into business after a teenage prostitute dies in childbirth and leaves behind an incriminating diary, eventually leading to some big time trouble with the father-and-son crime elites Viggo's working with.

Lots and lots of stuff going on with 'family' and 'heritage,' although I think the most Cronenbergian touch is the use of skin alterations -- tattoos and scars -- as the living biography of a man. If there's anything in this movie you've probably already heard about it's a big bathhouse fight toward the end between a naked Mortensen and a pair of knife-wielding assassins, and it mostly lived up to the hype for me. I mean, if there's anything Cronenberg always does right it's shooting scenes of violence in a way that slaps the audience around a little, real visceral and nasty stuff, and yet... the fight scene also totally pays off on the running skin motif, with every new cut a more 'real' biography for the character, augmenting the ritual of tattooing.

I don't think it's quite a great movie, mind you - just like in A History of Violence, with Viggo's son getting his own (awful) subplot only to get booted off the screen after a while, the whole Naomi Watts angle gets badly overpowered by the end. It hurts this film more, since she's a co-star at the start, and then has so little to do by the end it's like the movie itself got bored with her. The climax is overbaked and kind of ridiculous (and this time it doesn't help the rest of the film), with some really strained plot movements hammering characters toward resolution. Even then, there's a nicely ambiguous final shot (which, again, mirrors that of Cronenberg's prior film).

Yeah, I liked it. A high GOOD, maybe? A low VERY GOOD? Thank god this isn't comics reviewing, where all my grades are read back to me after I die to see if it's the Lake of Fire or not.

Oh!

The Programme #3 (of 12): I don't have all that much to say about this issue. It's more over-the-top political superhero soap opera from writer Peter Milligan, with dangerous beings breaking things in a haze (literally, thanks to C.P. Smith and colorist Jonny Rench) while government operatives pose dramatically and swap venom. I think the tone is best summed up when a government man mentions how America's errant superman threw him around like a rag doll, only for a liberal scientist type to reply "Now you know how the rest of the world feels about the United States," finger pointed outward. Then the scientist gives his best Don't Tase Me, Bro face after the rest of the present cast threaten to lock him in the cellar for the night. It'll be pretty funny if the character's entire role in the series is to make strident political points and then immediately back down when threatened. Maybe even clever.

Anyhow, the best parts are still hogged by the emerging superhumans ('superpowers' of a bygone Cold War age come back to life, don't ya know), one of which seems to have the power to make Joseph Stalin's disembodied head appear in the sky to evaporate oncoming aircraft. In those segments, Milligan's pushy dialogue and Smith's & Rench's garish visuals are free to expand to rightfully operatic proportions, while the human bits often come off as overblown. Still mired in EH, but the development promised by the last page might push it farther either way, all by itself.

Abhay Briefly Mentions Doctor 13, then Babbles Melodramatically

"Don't Tase Me, Bro." You know that video, right? John Kerry gets asked three pretty reasonable questions by some obnoxious shithead kid, yaddah yaddah yaddah, and the kid's getting an assful of taser despite saying quite clearly "Don't tase me, Bro." Which-- this is Dissent in America right now. We're in the middle of losing two completely shitty wars; the country's being run by these psychopathic incompetents; almost every single person I know for the last 7 years has been saying, "Where's the dissent? Why aren't there riots? Where are the student activists?"

And we got our answer: we got some shitty hippie yelling "Don't Tase Me, Bro."

Last week, DC released a book called DOCTOR 13: ARCHITECTURE AND MORTALITY by Brian Azzarello and Cliff Chiang, which was an adventure story featuring out-of-fashion DCU characters. And um... yeah: It was a very nice comic book, well executed by its creators. Cliff Chiang's art is consistently pleasurable; Azzarello's script is light-on-its-feet and assured; etc., etc. I don't know-- what do you want to know? I liked it. Thumbs up. Blue Ribbon. Three and a half stars.

Anyways, it's the latest comic in the genre of "Comics Have Abandoned Their Charming Past, and the Present is Therefore Fucked" stories. Which... let's give that genre a name. Something with "core" in it somewhere-- I just think we need a "core" around here. Music has joycore and hardcore. Movies have mumblecore. Artists didn't create those horrible names; critics did. No artist wanted those terms applied to their art; Will Ferrell didn't want to be in the fucking Frat Pack; Andrew McCarthy didn't want to be in the Brat Pack; being shoegazer wasn't going to help you get groupies. I want a fucking "core", man.

The Godfather of the genre is doubtlessly Alan Moore and Don Simpson's Pictopia, the premise of which was that the charming past of comics was being destroyed by the grim & gritty present of mainstream comics. Also: the finale of Grant Morrison and Chas Truog's Animal Man, one premise of which was that the charming past of comics was being destroyed by the grim & gritty present of mainstream comics. Mark Waid & Alex Ross's Kingdom Come-- the premise was that the charming past of comics was being destroyed by the grim & gritty present of mainstream comics. And so forth. Now we can include the pleasantly-titled Doctor 13: Architecture & Mortality to the list.

It's sort of a silly genre in a way. People who care about how charmless and talentless DCU comics in the present are? Stopped reading them, or at least I'd hope they have as that's clearly the most rational response. I'd like to think I've outgrown them, because I'm so mature and shit, but my affection for World War Hulk probably indicates otherwise. But I don't personally have a horse in the race. Doctor 13 was a get for me based on Azzarello and Chiang's work (separately) at Vertigo, but I couldn't guess if that's true of the book's entire audience or not.

On the surface, the genre might seem like it's trying to talk about how charming and nice the mainstream comics your Grampa was reading were, but that's not really it, is it? It's more about impotently grumbling about the present, than celebrating the past. It's the impotence that's starting to stand out as the defining characteristic to me. These works all fail. However good Pictopia is (fuck, dude, it's awfully good), the mainstream audience didn't really care about what Alan Moore was saying. Mainstream comics just get more and more coarse. Think back to Pictopia-- grim & gritty back then was that Hal Jordan knocked back one color-tini too many, every now and then. My god, if that's as bad as it got nowadays at DC, who would even notice?

And if it got that much worse from Pictopia (circa 1986) to now, how much worse is it going to get? In the future, every comic book will be about Hentai-Batman's Neverending War on Horniness. Tony Stark is going to be a well-hung dick-girl in 5.8 years; prove me wrong, internet. In the future, Shiwasu No Okina is your new Jim Lee, fanboys. That's my guess anyway. If I were a betting man, I'd bet it all on dick-girls.

It's hard to know when to complain or if complaints are even valid. Many complaints I might have should in theory apply with equal force to work I do enjoy, if taken out of context (see, e.g., Batman Year One). I'm sure everyone's trying their hardest; I would guess at least some of these ideas sounded good on paper. I think grim & gritty's pretty great in the right time and place; I think it's dramatically helped Marvel, at the moment. And I'm not someone who wrings their hands for "the children"-- I remember that something a little too old for me would be precisely the kind of material I'd be drawn to as a kid. I'd like to think I'm sympathetic. Still: I won't get near a DCU comic right now unless Grant Morrison or Brian Azzarello's name is on it. I'd be afraid of getting a rash. I'd be afraid it's spreading. So I don't know-- what does that tell you?

I once wrote a review complaining about a crappy, sloppy DC book; it wasn't a very well-written review-- it was actually pretty shitty-- but then all these people just linked to it anyways, which I thought was really strange. And what I realized from the experience is at most, I'd only helped the book just by talking about it, even if all I had to say was "look how incompetently this was made". I was adding to the "buzz." I was helping to make it a "talked-about" book.

But if you do complain about a book, the best case scenario: you become part of the marketing; you become complicit. Lingerie-Girl kills Green Arrow; Red Tornado fucks a chicken; the Teen Titans have a Christmas scat party-- whatever Judd Winick thinks up next? You just end up helping it. And that's the best case scenario; because the run of the mill is however eloquently you complain, you get drowned out by the great big background noise of angry lunatics, yelling about Hawkeye or bingo cards or the Manstream or whatever slice of crazy du jour. So, Marvel can publish women getting raped by octopuses on their covers, and instead of asking Joe Quesada anything meaningful (e.g. "Holy shit, why are there women getting raped by octopuses on your covers?"), the story coutesy of spineless Newsarama becomes "Look how the crazy fans are overreacting again; awww, Gumpus" instead.

You're just some guy screaming "Don't Tase Me, Bro."

I enjoyed Doctor 13: Architecture & Mortality-- it's a well made book. But seeing talented people spit in the wind-- it's talented spit, but my point is the wind's a motherfucker. Basically. That's my point. I'm going to go embroider that onto a pillow.

Bring Me More Pretty: Jog and the unique artists of 9/19

Man, I had no idea the new David Cronenberg movie (Eastern Promises) was already out. I'll have to attend the hell out of that tomorrow. But now...

30 Days of Night: Beyond Barrow #1 (of 3): In which writer Steve Niles returns once again to this movie-bound franchise, now with Bill Sienkiewicz on art. Just look at this. All throughout the issue, there's a good deal of variation packed into page after page of snowy landscapes and backgrounds: bright icy blues and whites interspersed with rolling nighttime clouds, veins of color and light pulsing in the sky, and snowy flecks of paint whipped against the page while digital blur effects swirl. It's a very sumptuous comic, and it knows it - over a quarter of the issue is spent on mood-drenched splash pages, while characters are mainly presented in either Sienkiewicz's vivid, panel-filling close-ups, or muddied against weather conditions.

Meanwhile, the story... well, let me sum it up. A bunch of vampires, illustrated by Bill Sienkiewicz, wander around for a while as captions fill new readers in on the essential 30 Days of Night concept. Then something off-panel kills them all, and Bill Sienkiewicz illustrates a lot of blood and pained expressions. Subsequently, a billionaire adventurer and his company of stock character types (the blithely glamorous wife! the disaffected daughter! the ambitious gunman!) show up, illustrated by Bill Sienkiewicz. Captions tell us about them. They wander around the Bill Sienkiewicz snowstorm, and ignore various warnings of danger, after which Bill Sienkiewicz illustrates a vampire head in the sky, and the issue ends with a splash page of a bearded man frowning, Sienkiewiczly.

There's no doubt as to which member of the creative team is the star here; actually, I'll go so far as to say your enjoyment of this issue will extend exactly as far as your hunger for Bill Sienkiewicz painting frost and gore, so vaporous is the script. That's enough for an OKAY out of me, but others may get antsy.

Batman/Lobo: Deadly Serious #2 (of 2): Ha ha, oh my god. I really do get the impression that this series may have been led around strictly by writer/artist Sam Kieth scratching his chin every so often and thinking "well, what do I want to draw now?" It's a really haphazard piece of storytelling, lurching from event to event with boundless energy, but little regard for pace or character. Worse, this concluding issue sees the title characters return to Earth, where Kieth has fewer wacky things to draw - Batman stands around a lot talking with an abruptly-introduced new character, while Lobo gets himself possessed by last issue's women-inhabiting alien thingy due to his "unusually high estrogen levels."

Kieth does circle around broad questions of what 'femininity' is, implying that a male character like Lobo is free to exist as a sort of quasi-superhero despite his homicidal ways, while female characters exhibiting similarly extreme moods are seen as especially odd, in that they violate expectations of feminine conduct. It's an interesting enough notion, but it gets seriously lost in the fury of Kieth's plot progression, packed full of repetitive fights and chases, and prone to jarring contrivances like Batman rushing to save a little kid pedaling his bicycle across an empty highway outside of a Vegas strip club.

But even then, Kieth manages a few eye-catching panels, like a great view of Batman grinning, or Lobo literally crumpling police officers like they're paper bags. It bumps this issue up to an EH, which is about right for the series as a whole.

Abhay Says: "Here's Part Two of a Review of Runoff, and Part Two of an Interview with Runoff creator Tom Manning"

This is part two of a two-part review of Runoff, a graphic novel created by Tom Manning that's been published by OddGod Press and was created over the course of the last 8-ish years; plus part two of a bonus interview with Mr. Manning is featured at the end of the review. It was suggested to me last week in the comment section (thank you!) that I begin this week by noting the following: Guillermo Del Toro (director of Pan's Labyrinth, the Devil's Backbone, Hellboy, etc.) is a fan of the comic, has in some capacity expressed "interest" in Runoff's cinematic potential, and provided the following quote for the back of the third "Chapter":

"Tom Manning has created a world that is as bizarre as it is recognizable. As scary as it is moving. The terse plotting and vivid characters in Runoff collapse the sweet flavor of Americana into a cyanide capsule that is easy to swallow, easy to like, and hard to survive. May we all get poisoned by Tom more often."  

He ripped off my pull quote; this is what I wrote:

"The stark art and surprising twists of Runoff set off on a rampage of cannibalism, murder and necrophilia, just like Jeffrey Dahmer. May we all get our toes eaten by Tom soon while In a Gadda Da Vita plays on a stereo."  

But others might cotton to poison metaphors coming as they are from a famous director and thereby cotton more to this particular book. I omitted discussion of the fact last time because who knows and who's to say, and I find the whole "this comic has been validated by Holly-weird" thing intellectually lazy and frivolous. With obvious exceptions like Captain America: the Chosen, which was written by Rambo. (It's fucking great: a young soldier with a head full of GOP talking points almost stops and questions his clusterfucked mission, but then he remembers Marvel Comics's Captain America and is so inspired that he kill dozens of nameless, faceless Arabs! Marvel Comics: They Help You Mindlessly Kill the Arabs!)

Or worse, it gives the wrong impression that the comic reads like a movie pitch, when that's so not the case for Runoff. And I have a very kneejerk "go pitch your movie like Buck Henry did in the Player, ya crumb-bum" response when I get a whiff of that. Which... I'm not sure is reasonable. Well, first off, if a comic felt like a MOVIE, I wouldn't have a problem-- if a comic had three arcs that fully realized its premise? It's the feeling like a "movie PITCH" that I think is more aggravating. But even then: what's the acceptable thing to say? The argument reduces down to "how dare you create your work in a way that conveys your intent not to starve." And outside of obsessive nerds like me-- no one cares. No one gives a shit. Marvel publishes a comic book with women getting raped by octopuses on a cover...? Judd Winick: still writing comics...? Plain Janes doesn't have a third act..? No one cares. No one gives a shit. Comics? Nothing matters to anyone.

Tom Manning started working on Runoff in 1999, and finished it 2007-ish. How much validation do you think he got for that in those 8 years? 8 years! I'm going to hope that y'all comic fans didn't throw Tom Manning a parade sometime in that 8 year time span, and didn't invite me. The book exists anyways. Is that the appeal of these kinds of comics for me? That I get to, you know, like, suckle off of someone else's irrational passion, if only for a few hundred pages. Is that gross? Maybe that's gross.

Or you know another thing people say that I'm never sure what it means: "I want comics that feel like comics, and not movies on paper." I don't understand what that means. Well, Runoff certainly satisfies that criteria: it mixes presentational styles, art styles, comic formats, genres, tones, purely visual elements, fantasy elements, etc., with some semblance of an underlying structure underneath that mixing. But: it's also fundamentally "cinematic"-- there's no narration or thought balloons, or explanatory text of any sort. So would the absence of the former somehow make the latter offensive? Or compare it to a book like CRIMINAL, say, which is purely cinematic and without any fantasy element-- is that book somehow less than because of the "comics shouldn't be movies on paper" criteria? I don't think so. I think that's just something people say on their comic blog when they're feeling uppity. In bed.

So, yeah: I don't know. I like Runoff. It satisfies my weird little prejudices that get me really excited about a book. I have a lot of weird things that prejudice me towards liking Runoff:

1. I Got to Discover It Myself: There'd been coverage about Runoff, but I'd not paid it enough attention to seek the book out before. When I got it and then liked it? I got to feel a sense of discovery. So much culture's chosen for people-- someone chooses which movies are important and which music gets on the radio, etc. It's not as fun.

2. It's Black and White: that's my preference in comics. There are great colorists out there whose work I love, but that having been said, I like how immediate a black and white comic is. (Other people might get excited by the hand-lettering, but you know-- that's never been a thing for me; we all have our weird things, but that's not one of mine).

3. Even If It's Funny, It's a Little Sad: Runoff's a comedy and a big silly monster comic, but when it counts, it's just sad about people. Maybe it's from reading Peanuts when i was a kid, but I think that's an important quality for a comic to have. My knowledge of the classic comic strips is limited so I'm not sure how prevalent that is with the great ones. Or I'm not sure if... when I look at the classic Walt & Skeezix / Gasoline Alley stuff, I'm not sure if the strip is sad or I'm feeling sad because it's OLD and a reminder of our collective impernance. In bed. Or, to translate that into mainstream-comics-ese: Ultimate Spiderman is a little sad about people; New Avengers isn't. And so on.

4. It's an Ensemble Piece Set in a Small Town: I grew up in a suburb; my graduating class was 80 kids. I think it's good when whatever surface genre elements are present, that underneath that there be a sense of observation about actual life in there somewhere. Which isn't to say I think it's crucial: I liked the KILL BILL movies or RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, same as anyone. I think there's nothing wrong if all that's being conveyed is a love and affection for a genre. But with Runoff, underneath it all is something I suppose I relate to. And heck, I'm just a sucker for an ensemble.

5. It's Not Perfect: Runoff-- the single mom character is never fully realized or integrated successfully into the plot; the finale over-relies upon exposition; the new residents of the town never get a viewpoint character, etc., etc. Who cares about perfect? I like seeing Manning find himself over the life of the book. I think that's one of the biggest pleasures of the thing-- the journey you go on to the town in Runoff, that's a journey you get to go on with Tom Manning. It's not just being handed to you. I mentioned CRIMINAL above-- it's this polished book by experienced professionals, and that's nice, I certainly like it a lot, I'm enjoying the second arc more than the first, I've really come around to liking the colors, etc. But I don't get excited about it. It's too reliably good. In bed. There's not that same element of risk, you know? There's no gamble. No one's going to get hurt. You watch hockey for the fights; you watch NASCAR for the car crashes.

You bored with this number thing? Oh, I don't think the number thing was a good idea. Anyway: Runoff is available wherever it's on sale, and online probably too from Mr. Manning's website, and maybe you'll like it or maybe you won't because it's all over the map that way, but me: I liked it, and I suspect there are other people out there that will cotton to it as well.

INTERVIEW WITH TOM MANNING PART 2:

Here's more of that interview; again i apologize to y'all for asking the questions so selfishly from the point of view of someone who's read and enjoyed the book, but-- well, hell, that's a lie: I'm not sorry at all. I did it and I'd do it again. SAVAGE critics.

Specifically, I mention the "floating objects" (which are not a spoiler in that they appear within the first 10 pages of Chapter One). One of the elements in the book are there are these floating objects that are creepy/cute. More importantly: people who want to stay strictly pure and unspoiled (and yet... are reading this anyway...?), might do well to avoid the final question-and-answer which concerns the book's themes. Caveat Emptor, dude.

QUESTION: What was the experience of working on a single book for 7+ years like? Comedy scenes, especially-- after 1 or 2 years, a lot of the jokes in the book might have stopped being funny to you. TOM MANNING: I have to admit, I still crack myself up at some of the jokes. I liked working on a series for so long, it was like having a movie on pause in your head for years. It seems annoying at the time, but you miss it when it's gone.

INTERROGATORY NO. 36: You've mentioned before that Runoff was intended to last for 4 Chapters, instead of 3. Is there anything you're willing to say about what got cut? TOM MANNING: It was going to center mostly on the day to day life of the people in Range as they ran out of food and got used to living with ghosts and talking animals. In a way it was going to be the most like Bloom County, where the premise was that these humans and animals lived in one boarding house and didn't think anything of it. I wanted it to seem almost like things were starting to get to a strange sense of normalcy and end the chapter on that normalcy. Anyway, I guess it did come down to a pacing issue. I realized that people may have turned on the book if they were made to put up with sixty pages ghosts, talking animals and humans hunkering down together through a snowstorm.

ME ME ME: I don't want to ask too much about them-- I think that'd be inappropriate, but can you talk about the character design of the floating objects? I especially like that they're always smiling, which seems wildly appropriate to me. TOM MANNING: Yeah, I admit I usually keep a tight lip on the meaning and look of the floating objects, not to be a jerk in any way, but more in the hopes that my reasoning is never really stated to the readers. But I would certainly say I was excited about the idea behind it because a lot of Runoff is about having elements that are usually separate play off and enhance each other. I guess it would be no surprise that if there is any influence it is Japanese character design, which worked with my interest of playing with what a comic book can do that other mediums can't.

IT'S YOUR BOY: Thematically, Runoff ultimately seems like it's focused on exploitation, how communities or individuals seem designed to exploit one another, and how their polite, social interactions are just a false veneer hiding their true natures. To the extent you agree, can you say why you thought that was an important theme for you? TOM MANNING: Absolutely. There was something about growing up in the northwest that made one feel that nature will eventually get the best of us in the end. Or rather, we'll get the best of ourselves as nature enjoys the last laugh. Perhaps this stems from having an active volcano like Mt. Rainier in sight at all times! I'm not totally sure where that comes from, I guess. I don't mean to have a dystopian view of humanity, I just think when it comes down to it, in a closed system, we'd really do ourselves in quick. Hm. Maybe that is dystopian.

One foot out the door, the other in the grave: Graeme signs off, talks up 9/19.

I'm literally tying up loose ends before thinking about packing - well, okay, I have the rest of the work day to get through as well, but you know what I mean. My thoughts are of holidays and two weeks away from everything... so let's get through this quickly, okay?

CAPTAIN AMERICA #30: Something I genuinely love about the post-Civil War, post-Cap's death era of this series is that Tony Stark is probably as much of a good guy here as he is in any Marvel book of the moment, despite having been on the other side of that old Civil War from the eponymous hero; seeing him solve the murder of Cap this issue was a surprisingly uplifting moment considering my dislike of the character almost everywhere else in the world of comics. It also brings some plot development right where the book was needing it, as Sharon goes back into fembot mode and shoots two of our new heroic ensemble cast just as Tony works it all out. Brubaker keeps everything moving here, and I'm still not missing Cap at all. Very Good.

COUNTDOWN TO MYSTERY #1: You have to hand it to Steve Gerber for the unexpected masochist movie star version of Doctor Fate, but as much as I want to snark, I found myself kind of warming to the sub-70s cosmicness of the whole thing, ably sold by Justiano's art. There's also an unexpectedness - a mysterious unexpectedness, you could say - to the Eclipso strip, which not only ties Eclipso to the New Gods, but also manages to make her feel like an afterthought in her own strip. Not as good as Countdown to Adventure, but nonetheless, more Okay than you'd expect.

THE FLASH #232: Yeah, I don't get the people who don't like Daniel Acuna's art; in my book, more superhero books should be as personable, with less generic faces and bodyforms. But then, I also would like to see more superhero books written like this, with alien invaders and faux-science solutions, and an enjoyable family-friendly tone throughout. Very Good, and I'd love for Waid to stick around on this for a long time.

JUNGLE GIRL #1: Amazingly, possibly more gratuitous inside with Andriano Batista's art than the Frank Cho covers would suggest. But those with cartoon fetishes would find themselves with pretty enjoyably hokum accompanying the cleavage and ass-shots. It's really not anything approaching art, but it's pretty Okay. Should I feel guilty for admitting that?

TALES OF THE SINESTRO CORPS: PARALLAX #1: Well, we'd gotten relatively far in the Sinestro Corps crossover without a piece of entirely unnecessary dreck, so I guess we should've been thankful for that. Sadly, now we have this one-shot that adds nothing whatsoever to anyone's life other than the bank balances of the creators involved. It's not even bad enough to dislike, it's just a boring and needless slice of Eh.

WORLD WAR HULK #4: It's still beautifully drawn, but both this and last issue of the big Marvel summer event feel as if they're killing time before the big conclusion next issue. Maybe it's just that there's not enough story in "Hulk returns to Earth, smashes" to last five issues, or perhaps it's that there's too much (He couldn't just smash and then be stopped? We have to have him recreating his gladiator experience on Earth?), but what started so well has settled into something that's Okay, but ultimately unsatisfying.

And now, for me, two weeks off. Will Countdown come good while I'm gone? Will Dynamite ask me to write the next Jungle Girl series because I called it enjoyable hokum? Will anyone miss me if I decide to stay in Paris instead of coming home...? These questions and more may be answered in just sixteen days, true believers. Play nice while I'm gone.

I Wanna Heal, I Wanna Feel: 9/19 Just Doesn't UNDERSTAND Diana's PAIN

You know how people sometimes laugh uncontrollably at inappropriate moments? And then there's that awkward feeling because they really should be taking things seriously? That's pretty much how I felt about PENANCE: RELENTLESS #1. It's so self-important (the title page proudly announces "From the pages of CIVIL WAR"), so... well, relentless in its dark and faux-meaningful atmosphere, and yet my only response was to giggle like a Japanese schoolgirl.

That reaction largely stems from Paul Jenkins' total lack of self-awareness: you can almost hear the entire Linkin Park discography playing in the background as Robbie Baldwin, nee Speedball, shows off his nipple rings (?), watches Marquis de Sade biographies (?!), writes tortured and cryptic entries in his journal (?!?!) and cuts himself up like a Thanksgiving turkey (!!!). I can actually see someone with a wry sense of humor, like R.K. Milholland or Kyle Baker, turn this into a hysterically funny parody of the emo sub-culture and its stereotypes... but Jenkins is taking this very seriously, and apparently expects us to do the same.

Which isn't an easy task, precisely because - in his desperate attempt to give meaning to an utterly meaningless character revamp (I mean, seriously, who thought it was a good idea to turn Speedball into a hybrid of Dennis Rodman and Gerard Way?), Jenkins isn't actually doing anything beyond invoking various shorthand cliches. He's taking all the shortcuts, without actually going anywhere; it's not enough to just throw out random excerpts from the Emo Handbook for Maladjusted Outcasts, not in an age when "darkening up" the happy-go-lucky crowd is an all-too-common trend. In his effort to stress how different Robbie Baldwin is, how any trace of Speedball has been erased, Jenkins forgets to make us care about this new Penance kid (who, by all indications, is exactly the kind of douche you'd slap in the face after thirty minutes of enduring his whining about his poor, misunderstood life).

AWFUL stuff, and I can't see this interpretation of the character lasting for very long without getting retooled. It's just too much of an obvious joke to everyone but its creators.

My Life is Choked with Things Other Than Comics Too: Jog begins the 9/19 reviews

Gah! It looks like the column's gonna have to wait until Wednesday. I can only hope the fever for expansive Marvel Graphic Novel sci-fi featuring outer space girl scouts hasn't cooled by then. For now, I'll begin a chain of reviews.

Gutsville #2 (of 6): I liked the first issue of this Image miniseries from writer Simon Spurrier and artist Frazer Irving, even though the plot seemed kinda rote and the characters stock. I liked this issue a lot more, and not because much depth has been added - rather, the creative team focuses on drawing so much joy out of their puritan-society-in-the-belly-of-a-giant-monster concept that the old tropes almost glow.

I cannot emphasize enough how vital Irving's visuals are to the feeling. This is the best work I've seen from him, wrapping some wonderful bits of character expression into increasingly hallucinogenic vistas of cavernous flesh and membrane. The sleek costumes and hints of magical transformation may be reminiscent of Klarion the Witch Boy, but there's a stronger sense of humor at play here, from clomping piston stormtroopers trampling an unlucky child (straight face maintained), to a long line of murderous revolutionaries standing in shadows, knives out, behind their faux-noble leader, gaily smoking a pipe in the light. And don't get me started on the drug bits!

Plotwise, things proceed as expected. Some parties try to escape the intestines of their monster home. Others jostle for power. Secret loyalties are revealed, bigger mysteries are suggested, and people are simply shocked by what they see off-page, although we'll have to wait longer. I think the deliberate nature of all this throws Spurrier's little touches into sharper relief, like how social classes are differentiated by how people handle profanity. And the writer has developed one really delightful character in Percival Launcet, "Friend to His Lordship, employer of common men, and passholder of the First d__mned Class!" who's also a secret proletariat revolutionary, taken to living his life as an ongoing parody of an arch-capitalist.

VERY GOOD fun all around, well worth checking out.

Streets of Glory #1 (of 6): This is writer Garth Ennis' new Avatar project, and yeah, that was enough to get me to check it out. It's a Western, supposedly Ennis' first without supernatural or fantasy elements.

It's pretty AWFUL on the whole, unfortunately, though there's some ok parts. I liked how the story is narrated aloud by an old man in a diner, with absolutely nobody bothering to listen to him. I'm usually ok with the 'old gunfighting vs. progress' theme, which is big enough to support a variety of stories.

But most of this issue comes off as alternately stilted and shopworn, with characters stumbling through tangled dialogue on their way down just the road you'd figure they'd be on. I understand that Ennis is trying to emphasize characters' backgrounds by contrasting their ways of speaking, but that doesn't make a "has it not" and "can we not" loaded conversation between two brothers any less clumpy and awkward... must be rationing contractions back East! Naturally, the older brother is killed and the younger man goes with a killer (yet soulful!) old gunman, to a dusty town, with black-hatted dastards approaching.

Compounding the problem is artist Mike Wolfer, a decent craftsman who's not at his best here. Most visibly, there's a nasty splash page where I'm pretty sure Wolfer is trying to toy with perspective to make the great gunman look like a giant bestride the landscape, but it's pushed too far and ends up looking really clumsy. Wolfer does deliver the gore, with faces literally falling to pieces under fire, but his storytelling sometimes coughs - there's one page with a villain reloading his shotgun that I read three times before I grasped who was moving where and doing what. Believe me, a first chapter this problematic doesn't need extra reading hurdles.

You better leave that kitten all alone: Graeme gets Presented from 9/19

It’s rare for a comic to live up (down?) to expectations as much as MARVEL COMICS PRESENTS #1. Which I first saw the line-up of the book, I wasn’t reminded of the 1990s version of the title (which started with the optimism that maybe characters like Cyclops and Colossus could be the tentpole characters for the book, before realism set in and we got Wolverine and Venom over and over and over again. Ah, such happier days) as much as I was left thinking “So, it’s the Immonen’s Hellcat and lots of filler, I guess.”

It’s not to say that the other strips are bad, per se – although the Vanguard and Weapon Omega efforts come close, if only for the fact that they sacrifice both plot and characterization in their first episodes for some vague sense of mystery that lacks the hook necessary for you to care enough to want to come back for a second helping (Disconnected scenes and foreboding dialogue alone isn’t enough to get me to care, people. You kind of need something more coherent for the reader, especially in an opening episode, to introduce them to the characters before the weirdness sets in) – but they don’t really have the style and panache of the Hellcat story; they feel like back-up strips, and I’m not sure if that’s down to intent or execution. The Thing and Spider-Man stories in the book are nice enough ideas, but either too low-key or, in the case of the Spider-Man story, not enough of an idea to last the length of the story (Sorry, Stuart; it’s a nice gag for a couple of pages, but after that it began to wear thin; that “It was all a dream… or was it?” ending didn’t help, either).

In comparison, Kathryn and Stuart Immonen make their contribution both read and look individual – the script sets out the character first and only really gives you the plot in the last couple of pages, but the pacing and humor (especially the retro pin-up fashion pages) make it seem as if they really care about the strip, as opposed to just filling up pages in a book for a paycheck. As far as the visuals go… Dude, it’s Stuart Immonen. What more needs to be said about that?

Overall, it’s an Okay book, but the Hellcat story itself is Very Good. Wait for the trade of that to come out and snap it up instead.