Thursday, 18 October 2012

Books: Point Blank

________________________________________________________________________________

Point Blank
Written by Ed Brubaker
Art by Colin Wilson
2003




Available now from Islington Libraries
You can reserve this item for free here:
http://www.library.islington.gov.uk/TalisPrism/


If comics people talk about Point Blank nowadays it's pretty much always in relation to Sleeper - Ed Brubaker's and Sean Philip's big undercover spy caper that (well - for the first half at least) is one of the tensest comic books around - seeing how - well - Point Blank is a Sleeper prequel (albeit a rarity these days seeing how it's a prequel that was written before the things that came afterwards instead of - well - afterwards [1]) - but (hey) even if you have no idea who Holden Carver is - Point Blank is a book that you can pick up with no background knowledge needed and [2] still get a kick out of. Put it this way: it knows how to pull your strings (like a puppet? You know: like on the cover? No? Oh. In that case: nevermind).

With hardly an inch of excess fat and with artwork duties for once not conducted by Sean Philips (Ed Brubaker's usual partner in crime for this kinda of noir meets superheroes kinda work) Point Blank is a detective story where the twist is [3] that the guy doing the investigating isn't really cut out for it (and Brubaker really spells it out for you: "I'll freely admit that I 've never been much of a detective. Putting together clues and figuring out motives just seems too tedious.": but then like I'm remarked before he's never really been one for playing thing subtly and so there's lots of stuff like people staring into cracked mirrors and the reoccurring line (do you see what he's done there?) of "It's like déjà vu all over again. [4]").

And in fact - while we're on the subject of the writing: I mean - judged on it's own merits this is a pretty fun book that (for me at least) doesn't really do anything too complicated [5] - but manages to bounce along in a pretty fun way and Colin Wilson's art (that we'll get to in a little bit) is pretty much consistently crackling. But then - right at the start there's a little dedication that reads "To Lee Marvin and Alan Moore and the idea that simple is not better." and in the afterword Ed Brubaker (who comes across as sounding way too self-satisfied for writing a book that (if I was giving grades [6]) would be C+ at best) says "I found myself asking what Mature Readers superheroes comics should be. As you can see, I decided they should be really complicated." And even goes so far as to compare the book to a möbius strip and then dares to mention it in the same breath as Watchmen (the cheek!): which for me - is a little like someone making you a cheese toasty and then start talking about michelin stars: I mean - I have no problem with what it is (and it is very tasty) - but let's not start getting a swollen head or nothing. Especially when your opening includes the line "It's like waking up from an alcoholic blackout and discovering that the girl on the next pillow is actually a pre-op trannie" (I mean really?) and then follows it with: "But, of course, by then it's too later because you've realized the truth about life right at the end... and all you can do is wait for the final blow." (Which in terms of the context you've set up just seems like a really poor choice of words - no? Just me?).

But hey - Colin Wilson on art! And for me - I've been a fan ever since I saw him doing Rogue Trooper and Judge Dredd stuff for 2000AD and like it says on his wikipedia page: "No one ... draws near-future military hardware like him." (In fact - before I read his wikipedia page I was going to say that his art really reminds me of the stuff that Möbius [7] (the artist not the strip) used to do on his strip Blueberry: but it turns out that Colin Wilson used to actually draw Blueberry so I guess that his work just reminds me of him - oops (oh well)). But yeah: his art has this really nice European flavor - that makes it a bit of a shock seeing it in an American context (and I'd say - goes a long way to making Point Blank seem a lot more classy than it actually is). But there's just so much nice little touches - like using the background colours to signify where in time you are - and the buildings and interiors all look proper lovely and detailed and good - like proper manga good (I mean - maybe I'm just thinking of Katsuhiro Otomo and Domu - but for me manga is always the gold standard when it comes to architecture in comics) .

So: enjoy the art and don't go thinking that the story is somekind of masterwork and you'll have a great time.

Simple as that.

...................................................................................................................................................
[1] Sorry: did that make anyone else's head hurt or is it just me? I just meant that most prequels tend to come out after the main thing (ie The Phantom Menace (which I guess is the best example for prequels) came out after the original Star Wars trilogy as opposed to before it - right?). But then I guess if prequels came out first then most of the time you don't call them prequels - you call whatever comes after sequels and just leave it at that (so - for instance - it would sound pretty strange if you called Toy Story the prequel to Toy Story 2). Of course that then begs the question as to why Point Blank is called the prequel to Sleeper instead of Sleeper being just referred to as the sequel to Point Blank? I guess the reason why prequel fits is that you can read Sleeper and be completely unaware that Point Blank even exists (in fact - I think that's just what I did the first time round...) and although there's a through-line linking both books: the emphasis is on different characters - so it's more like Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs rather than the Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal - yeah? Ok then.

[2] Cole Cash (aka Grifter) is actually a character that first appeared in a strip called WildC.A.T.s. But I've never read it  so I don't think you need to either

[3] Although it's really not really that much of a twist. In fact - I would have assumed it's actually a pretty common device by now - I mean Frank Miller was doing it with Marv in Sin City all the way back in 1992 and Sin City (as great as it is) was a series that's whole thing was that it was upon built upon already well-worn clichés - but then - hey - what do I know? I'm just a humble little comics blogger.

[4] Which - I would like to point out: is a line from Fight Club. (But - hell: actually it's such a cheesy line I wouldn't be that shocked if it turned out that it was first used back in the Middle Ages or something...)

[5] Although I'm writing this at the same time I'm rereading Chris Ware's Jimmy Corrigan - so maybe my perspective is a little out of whack? (But on second thoughts - no. It's not me: it's the book. And Ed Brubaker - so just disregard this).

[6] Ooooooh. Grades! That's a good idea!

[7] Or - if I was going to be more specific: Möbius crossed with Dave Gibbons.

...................................................................................................................................................

Further reading: Sleeper, The AuthorityIncognitoCriminalSin City100 BulletsQueen and CountryRedAnna MercuryGlobal FrequencyDesolation Jones, Fatale, Domu.

Profiles: Ed Brubaker.

All comments welcome.

Tuesday, 16 October 2012

Books: Kirby: King of Comics

_______________________________________________________________________________

Kirby: King of Comics
By Mark Evanier
2008





Available now from Islington Libraries
You can reserve this item for free here:
http://www.library.islington.gov.uk/TalisPrism/


Yeah. To be honest - I wasn't really much looking forward to reading this. I mean - it felt like I'd already done most of my "homework" (which is what doing this blog feels like sometimes) when I read that Men of Tomorrow book and so - in my big pile of books to read - it's kinda just sat their lying at the bottom (which seemed the best place for it - I mean it's a pretty colossal book - the kinda thing you'd grab if someone broke into your home and you were looking for the best thing to whack them across the head with). And then: when I did start reading it (and a few months ago now I should admit) I only got a few chapters in (like halfway through Chapter 3) - and - well - yeah - reader: I got bored - and so - I put it aside and said to myself (avoiding my own eye contact): yeah yeah yeah - I'll come back to it and read it properly sometime real soon - I promise! And then - well: nothing.

I was kinda tempted just to post like a one paragraph review [1] (something like; this is a book about Jack Kirby - that's the guy (Joss Whedon aside) who's pretty much responsible for The Avengers movie - he never really got his fair dues - it's an outrage - the book is his history - end) - but then - well: I've been doing a pretty job (recently) if I do say so myself - of not being so half-assed with the blog and trying (mostly) to write stuff a little bit more than the bare minimum.

And then: well - at two different websites that I like to read now and again (ok - fine - I have them saved on my favourites) - Grantland and The Comics Journal website (which is worth tuning into if only for Tucker Stone's Comics of the Week column - which is always so very enjoyably caustic [2]) - extracts from a new book called Marvel Comics: The Untold Story (by some dude named Sean Howe) [3]. Looking back - I don't really know how I got to this point - sitting - eating breakfast and reading about the history of Marvel comics (and like I said - not once - but twice - on two previously unconnected websites) and it not being something awful (I mean - about two years previously I think that if you'd given me the option of reading about the history of Marvel - I would have given you a polite smile and a "thanks but no thanks" - and yet here I was - reading this stuff willingly and with no hope that I would be getting anything out of it apart from the pleasure of reading it...). And - well - I guess that made me think that maybe - reading a whole book about Jack "The King" Kirby (well - reading as in - picking up from where I left off at least...) wouldn't have to be quite such a chore.

So: I went back and decided to give Kirby: King of Comics another go and (you know what? you know what?) I'm super glad that I did.

But then I guess a lot of what made my second-go-around so much more fun than the first-time-a-go-round is that - as the book is arranged chronologically (boring) all the fun stuff (ie Marvel and Stan Lee) doesn't really happen until Chapter 4 ("Facing Forward") and so before you can get to all that you need to make your way through all the build-up and well - frankly - that's the bit that I could have done without (and if you want some advice? If you're starting the book and you're getting bored then I would just skip to the good part - you're not missing much if you do): I mean - it's like if you're reading about John Lennon - who cares what he did before the Beatles? Let's get to watching him fighting it out with Paul (is that so wrong?)

I guess I'll also say this just before we start: the thing is with non-fiction book reviews (that is - you know - the proper books: without any pictures ) is that for me it feels like it can be a little bit tricksy to work out what exactly to write - with comic books (yes those are the ones with the pictures) even if you give away the whole plot it can be difficult to give away too much as long as you only stick to just writing about it. Because (unless of course you scan in images and pages from the book: which is something a lot of review sites tend to do - I guess because it makes things a lot easier to talk about - instead of trying to sum up how the art looks in words you can just go: see? It looks like this [4]) words can never really come close to replicating the experience of actually reading a comic. But books - I mean - what I'm going to do now is basically just highlight and quote all my favourite bits of the book which means that (by the time I'm done) there might not be much left for you to enjoy (it'll be like watching Goodfellas when someone's already done the "what am I clown?" bit - you know?): but whatever. I just wanted you to know I guess that it's something that I'm aware of (and feel a little bit bad for) - but then - well - deal with it - because I'm gonna do it anyway (hell yeah).

But on to the fun: and like I said up above: the best bit of this book is around the halfway mark when Jack and Stan get together and start producing hit after hit after hit after hit (that's: The Fantastic Four, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, The X-Men and (depending on who you believe - and for me this wasn't something that I was previously aware of) Spider-Man [5]. I mean - yeah before that there's stuff about his life as a street-kid and all that (and for your hardcore Jack Kirby fans - you should know that towards the start there's a rare Kirby story (presented in sepia tones) that comes across like Will Eisner (if you like that sort of thing) and then after that (altho there's an early career highlight when he creates Captain America with Joe Simon) there's his wilderness years when - not really being equipped to do much else apart from draw comics - he bums around doing cheap knock-offs and romance comics that all seem to only last a few issues before they're cruelly cancelled... But then: most of this was stuff that I already knew from reading that Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book - so it didn't really manage to hold much of my interest... (sorry Mark). It's only just before we get to the good part that we start to get hint's that something big is coming (and the foreshadowing is almost farcical - like if it happened in a movie you'd think it was too chessy) like: Kirby making a short story for DC about a man finding the hammer of Thor and transforming into the God of Thunder... a story about "a brute called the Thing." ...several creatures named the Hulk and (my favourite) "a sorcerer named Dr. Droom (Dr "Droom"? What the hell is a "Droom"? An evil broom maybe?) for Amazing Adventures magazine. (As well as getting a sense of just how dire and unprofitable comics were:  "Jack told of walking into the offices one day around 1961 and finding Stan [Lee] weeping. The comic line had been discontinued. "They were taking out the office furniture" Kirby recalled on more than one occasion  "I told them to stop.")

And then: yeah - it's on to the Stan and Jack show: with the white-hot fire of creation (did you know that the mighty Galactus was inspired by "science magazines" and the fear of a hostile corporate take-over?) slowly giving way to the smouldering flames of resentment as Stan nabbed all the glory while Jack was left worrying about whether he would ever get his due recompense and recognition (and so we get heart-breaking sentences like: "There was a steadfast belief that the company's financial success would trickle down his way.") And it's interesting seeing the different reasons why it happened that way: one suggestion is that it was hard for the general public to make sense that one person did the writing whilst the other one sorted out the artwork [6] - so that even when Stan and Jack would meet journalists together - the article that was printed would only just mention Stan. Then there's the fact that Stan had more connections and was way higher up in the corporate rankings - while Jack was just a lowly artist: the janitor to Stan's executive manager. And (most cruelly of all) there was the fact that Stan Lee was just - well - (if you've ever seen Stan Lee talk then you know that this is just stating the obvious) - a natural showman: He "...gave a much better interview than Jack. He was witty, charming and eminently quotable." While Jack Kirby was more. Well - like he man himself says: "If you'll notice the way the Thing talks and acts, you'll find that the Thing is really Jack Kirby... He has my manners, he has my manner of speech and he thinks the way I do." So - you know: not so good at being presentable [10]. And (at the risk of making too much hay out of it - and being a little bit too earnest): there's kinda one of the problems with the modern world - forget about when American is going to have it's first women President - you know what are the chances of them electing someone who isn't photogenic? (At this point - pretty much non-existent I'd say - no? [11]).

I don't know if this was intentional (I suspect not) but I like the way that the more you hear about Stan Lee in this book - the more that rosy image of American's favourite uncle starts to slip away: and there's loads of little remarks scattered throughout the book (and I know - maybe this is just me) - that start to seem like cheap shots: Like: "Cosmic rays. and all forms of radiation, in those days of atom bomb testing and scares, would prove to be an all-purpose, one-size-fits-all origin device for any comic scripted by Stan Lee." [12]

And then - well yeah - after the highs - the rest of the book charts the slow descent of Kirby's career as he's subjected to various humiliations such as seeing one of his poster artworks (artworks posters?) for the Incredible Hulk being "redone" by another artist - where the guy does nothing more than just change the face: and then gets all the credit. And lot's of stuff like that. (Oh - and I don't want to forget to mention Marvel's head honcho Martin Goodman who sounds amazing: here's the book talking about Spider-Man's first appearance in an anthology magazine called Amazing Fantasy: "Goodman hated it and cancelled the comic before receiving any sales figures... Subsequent reports, bolstered by reader mail and Stan's enthusiasm for the property, would prompt him to launch a Spider-Man comic the following year - the same month, in fact that he declared The Incredible Hulk a flop and cancelled the book." [13]. I mean - it ends on a high note: but then I guess when you have a whole life to pick and choose from (and especially someone as influential as Jack Kirby) you can spin the narrative in whatever way you like: I mean - it would have been equally possible to leave the reader feeling bummed out and howling at the injustice of it all (maybe just a sentence comparing the amount of money Kirby earned and the money that Marvel earned out of him - or something like that?).

But: hey - I'm gonna do the same kinda thing and just mention my favourite bit tucked away at the end: (This isn't actually connected to any of his comic work - but what the hell). Around about the time of the launch of the  The Pioneer 10 spacecraft [15] (which for some reason (?) the book calls the "the Jupiter Plaque") a newspaper thought that it would be a good idea for an article to approach a bunch of artists and have them submit their designs for what they would have done if they had been lucky enough to be asked to send their artwork out in space. Kirby drew (what else?) two superheroes (which the book says was done to scare away any aliens who saw it [16]) and the following text (which I managed to source from elsewhere - the book doesn't have the first part): "It appears to me that man's self-image has always spoken far more truthfully about him than does his reality-figure. My version of the plaque would have revealed the exuberant, self-confident super-visions with which we've clothed ourselves since time immemorial. The comic strip super-heroes and heroines, in my belief, personify humanity's innate idealism and drive. However, I would have included no further information than a rough image of the earth and its one moon. I see no wisdom in the eagerness to be found and approached by any intelligence with the ability to accomplish it from any sector of space. In the meetings between 'discoverers' and 'discoverees,' history has always given the advantage to the finders. In the case of the Jupiter Plaque, I feel that a tremendous issue was thoughtlessly taken out of the world forum by a few individuals who have marked a clear trail to our door. My point is, who will come a-knocking - the trader or the tiger? [17]"

But yeah. Would I recommend this book? Well yeah - if you're a Jack Kirby fan: then apart from all the word stuff - there's loads of full-colour reproductions of his art to smack you - WHAM! - in the face (I mean - I haven't really read that much Kirby stuff - but still: I've never seen his stuff look better than how it does here): and it's nice how it all feels so honourable - as in: you can tell that it's written by someone who's doing his very best to try and honour Kirby's name and legacy: at the start of each chapter there's a different quote from such high profile names as Nicolas Cage ("It's clear when you see it that's it him. That's what art is about."), Harlan Ellison ("No praise is too much.") and - erm - the drummer from System of a Down (that's John Dolmayan as if you didn't already know...) - so that's nice too. Plus: like the book says: "To several generations Jack Kirby was comics." so it's cool to be able to take a peek under the hood and get a sense of both the legend and the man.

Here's to you to Jack.

................................................................................................................................................
[1] And in fact the only notes that I had written for it so far just said: "This is a nice book - super-sized and heavy" and "And - yeah - I mean - ok - that's a cool cover. HULK SMASH! And all that." - which such give you some idea of how empty my tank was... All I could think of to say was how the stupid thing looked. Never mind what was inside.

[2] Sample quote: "Did you know that Nicholas Gurewitch posted a new comic at the Perry Bible Fellowship site last month? Because if you did, then hey, screw you pal: that’s the sort of thing I would have liked to have known about, and I had to find out on wiki-fuckin’-pedia, and you know how I feel supporting Julian Asspackages, or whatever that guys name is. Wikileaks? Wikiwhatever, I don’t have time to listen to your keester anymore, as I just got an email that the cancer might be back. New PBF! It’s part of a string of heartbreak comics that might hit closer to home if I hadn’t gone full Zero Dark Thirty into not knowing anything about what goes on in the lives of the people who churn out the milkshakes that fill my particular trough. In other news: I now refer to comics as milkshakes, and I now think of reading as an experience akin to eating liquidized food out of a long piece of metal not dissimilar to a urinal."

[3] The Grantland one is here (it's pretty boring at the start - but gets better about halfway through (be warned: it's a pretty big article) and after that Shannan the She-Devil picture you start getting stuff like this: "When they weren't at each other's apartments getting high, they were rampaging around with Starlin, Al Milgrom, and artist Alan Weiss, a Las Vegas–bred ladies' man who shared a Queens apartment with a rotating cast of five stewardesses. Together, they'd ingest LSD and wander Death Wish–era Manhattan at all hours. "We sort of took New York as this vast stage set," said Weiss. "We would launch ourselves to some part we hadn't seen yet, and go explore, day or night." There was the time they traipsed by security guards and wandered through the World Trade Center while it was being built. On one July night they went to Lincoln Center for a screening of Disney's Alice in Wonderland and hatched a Doctor Strange plot that included a hookah-smoking caterpillar. Then they walked to the U.S. Customs House in lower Manhattan and climbed around on Daniel Chester French's four statues of the continents, where they envisioned a Defenders story in which Doctor Strange transformed each statue into thousands of living soldiers to battle hordes of Atlantean invaders.") The Comics Journal one is here. (It's a lot shorter and more concerned with showing how evil (and stupid) Marvel could be in the face of the 90s comic gold-rush than the joys of the creative process): my favourite bit: “If the Punisher appears in a panel with another character,” Jim Starlin was told, “that character should be killed within the next few pages by either the Punisher or someone else. If the Punisher appears with any object, it should be destroyed in an explosion as soon as possible.”

[4] And yeah - I will admit that recently I have been thinking about maybe following suit and adding pictures into the main body of the text of these posts (you know: it would make things look a bit prettier, and would help to break up the text - and would make talking about the artwork a lot easier ("See? It looks like this.")). But - well - if I started then it would feel like I would have to retroactivily go back and do it for everything: and - well - that could take a while: plus - there's something to be said for committing to a certain way of doing things and just sticking to it no matter what. And - hell - someone it's good not to have those crutches (and - hell - now I think about I guess it's something that I can hold my head up about? "Pictures? On a comics blog? No thank you. I'm much better than that if you please." etc)

[5] Yep. There's a contingent of people out there that think that Jack Kirby had a hand in the creation of everyone's favourite web-crawler (and - no - I'm talking about this). But - hey - I'll leave it to you to read the book and let you make your own mind up in the face of the evidence (What do I think? I dunno if I could say for sure either way...).

[6] In fact - due to the "Marvel Method" (writer and artist sit and have a chat and work out the basic story beats - artist goes away and draws it all - and then writer comes in afterwards and fills in the word balloons) - it's more like Stan Lee would says something like "Wouldn't it be great if the Fantastic Four had a fight with God?" and then Jack Kirby would go away and then come back with the Galactus trilogy. In fact - Stan Lee had so little to do with the story that the first time he ever saw the Silver Surfer his first remark was something like (sorry - I should have written it down - but I think this is pretty much right): "Who's the nut on a surfboard flying through the air?" [7]

[7] And yeah: the way that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby came into conflict is worth it's own footnote: the author doesn't make that much of it - but there's a moment when he remarks that: "Jack saw the Surfer as a creature formed of pure energy, one who had never been human, which explained why he'd been roaming about the Fantastic Four comic, asking Earthlings to explain love and hate and other (to him) alien concepts. In Stan's story, the Surfer had been a man on another planet who scarified human form to save the woman he loved." Because that right there seems to expose the fault-line in the way that tended to do stuff: the fantastical versus something a lot more down to earth: the cosmic instead of the mundane. Of course when these view-points were blended together you got the kinda of great mix that you get in the Fantastic Four - where one second they're battling space monsters while the next - they're squabbling amongst themselves (families huh? Who'd have 'em?) but it also makes sense in terms of their characters - Stan always with one eye on how things were gonna play and the best way to game the system: while Jack spent most of his time with his head in the clouds - staring up into the infinite and orchestrating epic battles between demi-gods and beings of awesome power [8]. And even tho (yeah - I'll admit it - I'm not that much of a fan of his artwork [9] - shocking I know) I still know which mentality I prefer: and which one tends to produce the stories that it entertains me to read (here's a clue: it's not the one with the cornball ideas of people sacrificing themselves in order to save the women they love: that's a bit too much like cheap overwrought melodrama for me...).

[8] Which I guess is how he managed to successfully predict the rise of the San Diego Comic-Con. Quote: "It will be where all of Hollywood will come every year to look for the idea of next year's movies."

[9] In fact (and I hope that all the Kirby fans out there won't hate me too much for saying this?) but my favourite bit of art in the whole book was the Sky Masters of the Space Force stuff (yeah - not the most subtle name out there...) only to then discover that it's one of the few bits (only bits?) of artwork where it's Kirby working with someone else (some guy called Wallace Wood). Oh well - I guess the pure unadulterated Kirby just isn't for me. Maybe it's too potent (actually - claustrophobic would be a good word to sum up how it makes me feel) or something - I dunno. But hey - I tried.

[10] In fact it sounds like Jack Kirby talks the same way I write: "He had a tendency to ramble from topic to topic, leaping about and leaving one sentence unfinished while he began three others." (A kindred spirit!)

[11] But hey - as with most things - Doug Stanhope says all this stuff much better than I ever could.

[12] And working my way through the book I kept being reminded of a thing Tim O'Neil over at The Hurting last month where he basically listed every single major comic book writer (from Alan Moore all the way to Jim Davis) and then wrote down the nastiest possible thing he could about them (I least I think that was the point - maybe I got the wrong end of the stick? I dunno - you can read it for yourself here) the Stan Lee one (the thing that kept springing into my head as I read) puts it really succinctly when it says: "Probably deserves every bit of credit alongside his collaborators, but will go to his grave vaguely dissatisfied by the fact that no one likes a company man." (and yeah Stan Lee = a company man through and through). (Or (even better) like Alan Moore recently said: "...back in the day “there was a reason why “Jolly” Jack Kirby wasn’t always jolly, why “Sturdy” Steve Ditko wasn’t always sturdy, and why “Smiling” Stan Lee was always smiling.”")

[13] To which the author Mark Evanier [14] (for some reason I kinda imagine him as sounding something like Troy McClure) wryly notes: "Talk about a guy who was slow to realise when he had a hit on his hands."

[14] I was looking for some more information about him and found this on amazon: Mark Evanier met Jack Kirby in 1969 and became his assistant and official biographer. A writer and historian, Evanier has written more than 500 comics for Disney, Gold Key, DC Comics and Marvel Comics, several hundred hours of television (including eight seasons of Garfield) and is the author of Mad Art (2002). He has three Emmy Award nominations and received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Writers Guild of America - which well left me a little stunned. I mean - if he's written so much and has a Lifetime Achievement award then how on earth did he write such - pedestrian and unimaginative (oh the irony) sentences as: "He was the guy who took comics to new levels of imagination... and then he took those new levels of imagination to still newer levels of imagination." (I mean - really? That's the best you can do?)

[15] From the mighty power of wikipedia: "Pioneer 10 (originally designated Pioneer F) is a 258-kilogram robotic space probe that completed the first mission to the planet Jupiter and became the first spacecraft to achieve escape velocity from the Solar System." At the behest of Carl Sagan Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 carry a 152 by 229 mm (6.0 by 9.0 in) gold-anodized aluminium plaque in case either spacecraft is ever found by intelligent life-forms from another planetary system. The plaques feature the nude figures of a human male and female along with several symbols that are designed to provide information about the origin of the spacecraft."

[16] You can see it here. (Although if it's meant to scare aliens off then I don't know why they're both smiling - wouldn't it have been better to have them looking stern with their arms folded?)

[17] In other words: DAMN YOU SAGAN - YOU'VE DOOMED US ALL!

................................................................................................................................................
Links: Andrew Tunney Article: Some Thoughts on Nick Fury.

Further reading: Marvel Visionaries: Jack KirbyAlan Moore: Storyteller, Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book, SupergodsSupreme.

All comments welcome.

Thursday, 11 October 2012

Books: Murder Mysteries

______________________________________________________________________________

Murder Mysteries
Written by Neil Gaiman
Art by P. Craig Russell
2002




Available now from Islington Libraries
You can reserve this item for free here:
http://www.library.islington.gov.uk/TalisPrism/


Going from that title I assumed that this was going to be a some kind of detective story starring a private eye with a dirty tenchcoat and a furrowed brow ("...and just one more thing.") - but no. But least - not in the way that you would think. Because altho the bare bones of the story that sits in the middle of this book is as familiar and old as - well - a murder mystery - except wearing a costume that most people would find a little bit - unlikely.

But - hey - if you wanted to sum up Neil Gaiman's writing style - a lot of the time he deals with pretty well-worn concepts and ideas (dysfunctional families and stuff like that) only twisted up and made new by virtue of being pinned to mythical beings from dusty legends and faraway lands (so - a dysfunctional family - only it turns out that they embody powerful forces or aspects of the universe that have existed since the dawn of time (so - yeah - it's not exactly Shameless [1])).

But yeah Murder Mysteries: a comic based on a short story by Neil Gaiman [2] (and also - according to the credits in the book it's also been transformed into - a radio play (!?) Ooh - along with this and Signal to Noise - it seems that Mr Gaiman has a little sideline building up as a radio-play-maker - would love to be able to hear it - but (alas) - I can't them on youtube [3] and my curiosity (unfortunately) doesn't extend so far as to actually wanting to actually pay money). But - sorry - the comic. Well - once again - it's been adapted by the always lovely P Craig Russell who (along with this and Sandman: The Dream Hunters and Coraline seems to be fighting Neil Gaiman's retirement from comics by adapting every children's book and short story he can get his hands on... hey: more power to him I guess - I'm not gonna be a killjoy and gently suggest that maybe he should let it go and more on to pastures new - when the result is a chance to read more books like this... But whatever).

So - yeah - I haven't actually read the little (I assume little - maybe it's a 100 page monster? I dunno) prose story that this is based on (in fact the only Neil Gaiman short story that I have read is A Study in Emerald which is a pretty cool Sherlock Holmes / Lovecraft type thing that was recommended to me by Jan from the Comic Forum - so - thanks Jan!) - this comic left me satisfied enough that I didn't have the urge: which I'd probably say is the best thing that any adaptation that can do [4]. Typically for a Neil Gaiman story (yeah? Or is it just me?) Murder Mysteries is written in a very personable first person - almost as if he were leaning other your shoulder and reading it to you as you go along (and I guess this is why I'm not really that surprised that Gaiman has gone off to make radio plays - seeing how quite a lot of the stuff that he tends to do is very concerned with the human voice and different types of speech patterns and stuff like that (I would love to give a few examples to back this up - but at the moment they all escape me: still - if you've read the stuff he's wrote - I'm sure you can think of your own [5] - like - nine times out of ten - his stories feel like they belong written down and more like they should be spoken aloud: "Sure. Tell me a story.") - with (as is his wont) lots of little brief digressions (I like it!) and little offhand thoughts thrown in to help you along ("Every seven years each cell in a body dies and is replaced." / "Memory is the great deceiver" /"People named Tinkerbell name their daughters Susan." [6])

The art is excellent - and whether it's shadows cast by overhead freeways or the wavy lines around a person's head as they get a - well - a blowjob (I'm sorry if there's any children reading this - normally I would never be so crude - but didn't quite know how else to phrase it ("oral relief"? God no)) I mean yeah - come on - P. Craig Russell always knows exactly what he's doing... (he has been around forever [7] after all - which I guess is what gives him the freedom to do whatever the hell he wants - I mean hey - yeah - you wanna adapt three different Neil Gaiman things? Go right ahead...).

I will admit that I was a little bit trepidatious when I first started - because - hey - due to the subject matter of - you know - celestial beings and stuff  - I thought that maybe it was a mistake to read something that seemed designed to leave so much to your imagination (there's one point especially where it talks about bodies that seem to glow from the inside that - sorry dude - P. Craig Russell just isn't able (and - well - doesn't really seem to try and capture in the artwork) - that left me thinking how much better it would have been if it was left unseen in say a book (or even a radio play!) but then (and this was good) there was a line about halfway through that spoke about the story having been put in a "form you can understand." and that actually - (this was implied - but what the hell): the whole story was - if you somehow got a chance to deal with it 'direct' somehow beyond actual human comprehension. And - well - I dunno - there's something about ideas which lie beyond our (puny human) ability to understand that always makes me a little bit - erm - tingly (that means I like it basically) - so that's a good: but it also made me feel better that it had almost made an acknowledgement that the artwork of the comic was just a peception of how things happened rather than - the real deal (is this all a little bit too vague and metaphysical for you? Sorry: ex-philosophy student and all that...). So. Yeah.

And also - I guess I should acknowledge that if you wanted (and if you're like me - there'sa small surge of pleasure that comes from this - yeah yeah yeah) you can read the whole thing as a Sandman prequel - not in any direct way - and it doesn't tie in with Dream or any of his brothers and sisters - but there is one character who all Sandman readers will recognise - whose driving motivations are made - a little bit more clear.

So far I've done a pretty good job of not expressly giving away what the story is about and so - to try and stay in that area and not tell you too much for those who haven't had a chance to read it yet - I will stay vague by just saying that I also enjoyed the way that the language hadn't quite developed: "There has been a... wrong thing." / "The inner fluid." / "So that's green is it?" and (I don't know why - but I really got a kick out of the description of their duties ("Advising, correcting, suggesting, forbidding.") and - last but not least - it's very hard not to fall in love (just a tiny bit) with a story where a character points at the Universe and asks "what's it for?"

...........................................................................................................................................
[1] And just in case there's one person out there that doesn't know what I'm referring to - it's called The Sandman - and you should totally be reading it already.

[2] If you wanna: the original story (with no pictures) can be found in Gaiman's collection Smoke and Mirrors and in The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror (St. Martin's, 1993)

[3] Oops - actually tell a lie: here they are! (Narrated by Michael Emerson?! (Better known as - Mr Ben Linus from Lost) Squeeeeeeee! Gonna need to make time to listen to this all methinks: and if you're very lucky - I will report back later to let you know how it went).

[4] Check out my tribulations with The Dark Tower comics for my own little case study for when comic book adaptations go wrong (and there's a great title for a TV show right there if anyone's interested).

[5] Here we go: Matthew the Raven - if you can read The Sandman and not hear his voice in your head when you read it (I guess it's somewhere in-between Joe Pesci and Martin Freeman (and how's that for a hellish mash-up?) then I just don't know what's wrong with you.

[6] Which sometimes have a habit of not actually been so disconnected from the story after all.

[7] Well - ok - 1972.

...........................................................................................................................................
Links: Biting Dog Press Neil Gaiman Interview, The 52 Review Review.

Further reading: The Sandman: The Dream Hunters, Coraline, The Sandman, Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book Stories, Lucifer, Violent Cases, Neil Gaiman's Midnight Days, StardustSignal to Noise.

Profiles: Neil Gaiman.

All comments welcome.

Tuesday, 9 October 2012

Books: Red

______________________________________________________________________________

Red
Written by Warren Ellis
Art by Cully Hamner
2004




Available now from Islington Libraries
You can reserve this item for free here:
http://www.library.islington.gov.uk/TalisPrism/


Yeah - I know it's stating the obvious but (wow) movie cycles sure go quick nowadays. I remember all the way back in 2010 when the movie Red [1] came out and (this is only a very slight overstatement) for a week or two it was everywhere (was it just me? But seemingly everything I read seemed to be talking about it? Then again - I do tend to read a lot of movie review website type things...) and then - well - nothing. I mean apart from when it came out on DVD and our library got a copy and for those first two months or so and it went out pretty much every day: but then after that - I dunno - it just kinda got forgetten about - and nowadays if you mention it to anyone then I'm guessing the response would be - huh? (Although Hell - that's just conjucture - maybe if you asked a random on the street they'd be all like - oh yeah - Red? I love that film: but who knows?).

I was always slightly curious about checking Red out (literally - as in: checking it out from our library) because - well - maybe you didn't know this before (you're about to know it now tho) Red was actually based on a Warren Ellis comic (yep - that's the one in the picture above [2]). Compromisng only 3 slender issues Red is a nasty little gutpunch of a comic that I'm guessing I must have first read sometime back in 2009 - seeing how I can remember being pretty surprised when I first saw that trailer [3] - because yeah - as much as I know it's pretty lame to say this - but (if you've seen the movie [4]) you should know - this book is nothing like it [5].

(Normally - I don't really go much in for taking about whatever film the comic I'm writing about is based on - because (hey) - different entities and all that right? But with Red it kinda seems that if you wanna talk about it - you do kinda need to reference the movie if only because it's pretty much the reason that anyone would even bother with it anyway - I mean - the quote on the cover of the book is from Publishers Weekly ("Hamner's slick art is up to the bloody mayhem") - which really (sorry Publishers Weekly) is only one step up from having a review from Amazon [7] or something... And the only reason that there's a version of it with just Red by itself (no Tokyo Storm Warning [3] with this edition - sorry) is because of Bruce Willis and his merry band of friends - thus that little sticker at the top: "Soon to a be a Major Motion Picture!").

But: yeah - just from watching that trailer all that whole jolly almost-carefree "We're getting the band back together" vibe (awww! Look how cute they all are! It's like The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - only with more guns!) - well: it's like comparing tea and crumpets to (erm) liquid dynamite. Yeah yeah - I could be totally wrong - but from that trailer - Red (the film) looks like some sorta sub-Burn After Reading type caper with added a few added explosions and violence to make sure no one falls asleep [8] (and hey - I've gotta admit that's kinda a funny image: someone watching a Coen Brothers movie and going: "You know what this needs? More explosions and violence.") - although maybe the only reason I'm thinking of Burn After Reading is because of the presence of John "Malkovich [9]" Malkovich? (Also - at the risk of sounding too much like a fanboy - at the end of the trailer there? That's Die Hard beating up Judge Dredd! OMG! etc). While Red (the comic) is much more... well - let's get into that shall we?

Red the comic - well - if you wanted to compare it to a film - it's less like a caper flick and more part of that (ever-popular) genre of one lone man with a gun going around and shooting lots and lots of people - think of Steven Soderbergh's The Limey, James Cameron's The Terminator or - well - any film starring Jason Statham. It's not so pretty - and not so joy-filled - but hey: there's lots and lots of violence.

Except (and this for me is what makes the book worth reading) - it's not exactly mindless escapism and very far from being consquence free. Because unlike most of the guilt-free gun-play comics which are out there - Red makes an effort to distinguish itself by choosing to focus on the reasons and consquences of why there are people out there who go around killing people in the name of - higher ideals. In fact - if you just popped the book in my hand and let me read it without seeing the cover then I would have guessed that it was written not by Warren Ellis (it doesn't have as much (or any) of the crazy science stuff I mostly know him for) but more like the grim-and-gritty version of Garth Ennis (like 303 or something like that).

.........................................................................................................................................
[1] The film based on this book? Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Mary-Louise Parker, Helen Mirren, and Karl Urban? No? Not ringing any bells? Well - here's the trailer - enjoy!

[2] And what is it with Hollywood making films based on obscure little comics  that no one (sometimes not even me!) has never even heard of? Cowboys and Aliens? Based on a comic. Surrogates? Based on a comic. A History of Violence? Based on a comic. Road to Perdition? Based on a comic. (Also - Virus (from 1999 with Jamie Lee Curtis? No?) and Timecop (the Jean-Claude Van Damme film from 1994? Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about...) and Men in Black (yep) = all based on comics). I mean - I can guess the probable reasons (I'm guessing it's easier to sell a film when it looks like you already have the storyboard written - plus - you know - Hollywood ain't exactly known for being the birthplace for fresh new exciting ideas - but still - come on).

[3] And - in fact - if you're interested: it originally came out all the way back (even further) in 2004 in a dual format / two comics for the price of one! format with another Warren Ellis comic called Tokyo Storm Warning (that we still have available in Islington if you're interested?) - that's basically Warren Ellis putting his own evil spin on that (excellent) Japanese genre of: people wearing giant robot suits and fighting giant monsters (I mean - the build-up is good - but the end is a bit of a let down).

[4] And obviously obviously I haven't seen the movie (which you would think would rule me out of the position of being able to comment on what the movie is actually like) - but come on: you can definitely (absolutely) get a sense of what a film is like from watching a trailer - right? (Right).

[5] In fact - I've been racking my brain to think of another example where the source material and movie adapation have been so far out of whack from each other - and the only one I can think of is Wanted (comic by Mark Millar film by Timur Bekmambetov....). But I know there's loads others (just can't think of any - damn). (Oh! Wait a second - Alan Moore adapations! Namely (the worse offenders and one's which scared him off Hollywood: From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (or as they called it when it came out - (however hard this may be to believe) - LXG [6]).

[6] According to Alan Moore: ""The film cost £100 million because Sean Connery wanted £17 million of that - and a bigger explosion that the one he'd had in his last film. It's in his contract that he has to have a bigger explosion with every film he's in."In 'The Rock' he'd blown up an island, and he was demanding in 'The League...' that he blow up Venice or something like that. It would have been the moon in his next movie."

[7] Or - even worse: IMDB - like on the cover of the DVD to the Celestine Prophecy ("Outstanding. I was inspired... a great movie") - I mean - really?

[8] Oops - that makes it sound like I'm having a dig at Burn After Reading (which I would hate to do - because - I seriously love it (have you seen it? Oooh - you really should). It's more like I'm having a dig at the sort of people who I imagine made Red and the sort of way that I imagine they think about their audience (you know what they say about how explaining a joke kinda kills it? Well - yeah - maybe I shouldn't have even have bothered trying to be so droll... (oh well). 

[9] Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich!

.........................................................................................................................................
Links: Popdose Review.

Further reading: 303, Richard Stark's Parker, Button Man, Queen & Country, The Punisher: This Punisher MAXSleeper, Black SummerElektra: Assassin, Scalped, Desolation Jones.

Profiles: Warren Ellis.

All comments welcome.

Thursday, 4 October 2012

Events: Islington Comic Forum 2012/11

________________________________________________________________________________

























Ok. So you know what? It's kinda hard to describe properly what a typical meeting of the Islington Comic Forum consists of (relax: - I'm not going to use that hoary old cliché about there's not really any such thing as a typical meeting of the Islington Comic Forum because - we're better than that - right?) - I mean: in the strict physcial sense - it's a big table full of comic books (at a rough guesstimate I'd say there's usually around - what? - 150 books available for people to take home at each session) and a bunch of people (typically we get about a dozen or so people turn up) all from various walks of life and all with different backgrounds (yeah - I know you're thinking that's it probably all nerdy white guys - but seriously - we're as multicultural and diverse as a corporate video - with an age span from 6 to 90) all sitting around and discussing/arguing/sharing their thoughts and ideas about one of the most exciting and diverse mediums on the planet (nowadays if you're talking about something that's just "all about superheroes" my first guess is you're talking about films - but whatever). It's a little bit more chaotic than a book club but with the same sort of relaxed and open friendly atmosphere: all presided over by an excitable librarian (that would be me - hi!) who has pretty much read every comic book out there (even the terrible ones) and is willing to tell you where you're going wrong with whatever you're reading (and is most happy when people disagree with him). If you're curious as to what sort of books we discuss - then take a look around this blog - every book here has been included at one point or another. And if you want to know what sort of things we talk about: - well - it's never really that properly thought out but we touch upon everything from the best way to construct a story, to how far genre limits can go all the way to if Frank Miller was right about who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman.

Books available this month will include (unless - of course - they get reserved by other people): Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on EarthGotham Central / The Walking DeadSpecial ForcesUltimate Comics: Spider-Man (2012) / Arrowsmith: So Smart In Their Fine Uniforms / Batman: Year 100Alan Moore: Storyteller / X-Men: New X-Men / MezolithThe Umbrella Academy / Judge Dredd: The Complete Case Files 07 / American Splendor: The Best of American Splendor / Transmetropolitan / A Distant Neighbourhood / Are You My Mother? / The Fablous Furry Freak Brothers plus many, many, many (many!) more.

There's also a book of the month (so that at least we can all talk about something we've all read). This month it's: A Taste of Chlorine By Bastien Vivès. If you get a chance please read it. You can reserve yourself a copy here. (For those of you that don't get the chance - don't worry - you can still come and join in with the discussions).

The next one is: Tuesday the 6th of November / 6:00pm to 7:30pm in the Upstairs Hall at North Library Manor Gardens N7 6JX. Here is a map. Come and join us. It's free. All welcome.

.....................................................................................................................................
For more information (or if you have any questions and/or would like to be added to our email list: we send out a reminder a week before with a list of the books that are going to be available) you can email us here.

All comments welcome.

Books: X-Men: New X-Men

________________________________________________________________________________

New X-Men
Book 1
Written by Grant Morrison
Art by Frank Quitely, Ethan Van Sciver and Leinil Francis Yu
2011



Available now from Islington Libraries
You can reserve this item for free here:
http://www.library.islington.gov.uk/TalisPrism/

New X-Men
Book 2
Written by Grant Morrison
Art by Ethan Van Sciver, Igor Kordey and Frank Quitely
2011



Available now from Islington Libraries
You can reserve this item for free here:
http://www.library.islington.gov.uk/TalisPrism/

New X-Men
Book 3
Written by Grant Morrison
Art by Frank Quitely, Ethan Van Sciver and Igor Kordey
2011



Available now from Islington Libraries
You can reserve this item for free here:
http://www.library.islington.gov.uk/TalisPrism/
New X-Men
Book 4
Written by Grant Morrison
Art by John Paul Leon, Igor Kordey, Phil Jimenez and Ethan Van Sciver
2011



Available now from Islington Libraries
You can reserve this item for free here:
http://www.library.islington.gov.uk/TalisPrism/

New X-Men
Book 5
Written by Grant Morrison
Art by Frank Quitely and Keron Grant
2011



Available now from Islington Libraries
You can reserve this item for free here:
http://www.library.islington.gov.uk/TalisPrism/
New X-Men
Book 6
Written by Grant Morrison
Art by Phil Jimenez and Chris Bachalo 
2011



Available now from Islington Libraries
You can reserve this item for free here:
http://www.library.islington.gov.uk/TalisPrism/

New X-Men
Book 7
Written by Grant Morrison
Art by Phil Jimenez
2011



Available now from Islington Libraries
You can reserve this item for free here:
http://www.library.islington.gov.uk/TalisPrism/
New X-Men
Book 8
Written by Grant Morrison
Art by Marc Silvestri
2011



Available now from Islington Libraries
You can reserve this item for free here:
http://www.library.islington.gov.uk/TalisPrism/


Yeah - I'd been waiting a long to read these babies.

It basically all began when I saw Joss Whedon's name on the front cover of a X-Men book (I'm guessing this was Vol 1 of his run on the X-Men - so what was that called: Gifted?). I mean - as a kid I guess that I always kinda liked the X-Men (didn't they have a cartoon or something? I seem to remember a cartoon...) but in terms of actually bothering to pick up a comic of them and read it from beginning to end? Yeah - not so much... But like I said - it said Joss Whedon - and although I wasn't really any sort of Joss Whedon fanboy - I thought what the hey - I may as well try it out - right? (And I'm guessing I was just about to go on a tea-break and didn't have anything else lined up to read... but I dunno for sure).

But yeah - it was good. It was fun and funny and exciting and well-written and beautifully drawn - and - well - yeah - just cool all round I guess: so I got the next volume and the next - and basically just read the whole series in about a week... (Have you read them? Well - you should: trust me on this)

Sometime after that - I can't remember how or where it was exactly that I found out (but I think I must have read it somewhere on the interwebs) that Whedon's X-Men run was preceded by this big infamous Grant Morrison run called (enticingly enough): The New X-Men. And it wasn't some little thing either - apparently while it was beginning published it was No. 1 in comic book sales charts (I didn't even know that comic books had sales charts - but what they hey) and  -well - yeah - it was the place where Grant Morrison went from being that oddball Doom Patrol / Animal Man / The Invisibles strange guy with the cult following into - well - the Grant Morrison with the massive popular following [1] that everyone on the internet now seems to have it in for [2]. 

But - hell yeah - from the sounds of it: it seemed like it was the perfect reading experience: a series that I already loved from Whedon's go - mixed in with the craziness of Grant Morrison - but tied to something that wouldn't let him get too crazy (I don't really like Morrison when he gets too crazy). Plus - there was apparently lots of Frank Quitely mixed in there too - and that's always someone who seems to bring out the best in Grant Morrison's work - and makes his trips to the extremes that much more comprehensible (which - you know - is always to the good). In fact - if I had to describe what I was expecting from these books - I'd have to say - the same kind of thing that Grant and Frank managed on All Star Superman - a kinda supreme summing up of the whole X-Men legend in a grand, transcendental multi-layered story that managed to be both fun and intelligent, exciting and thoughtful, easy-going and experimental: All Star X-Men basically [3] - and yeah - for me at least - it was the final Grant Morrison epic that I hadn't yet got round to - it's like if you were a Stanley Kubrick fan and you'd never seen Lolita (that reminds me: I should watch Lolita): so it's not really like your expectations are high ("oooh man - I hope that this is gonna be good!") - it's more like you just assume that you're going to be great ("I mean - come on: obviously.") - I mean - you're dealing with the best of the best - right?

Well - yeah - right. Except (you knew there was gonna be an "except" right?) - I dunno. As much fun as I had reading all eight books - I must say by the time I reached the end I was feeling - well - I guess I felt a little let down. Don't get me wrong: there is some amazing stuff inside these books and especially (surprise surprise) all the stuff that Frank Quitely does [4] but all-in-all - I guess the build-up couldn't quite match the actuality: I guess if I had to try and sum up what I felt was lacking - it's almost as if (oh irony) Morrison doesn't really let himself off the reins and - well - doesn't go crazy enough [5].

I mean - yeah - it is pretty wild and crazy so - you know - it's not just superheroes - but alien superheroes, it's not just Sentinels - but Super Sentinels and (at the end) it's not just America - but Megamerica. And seeing how there's a pretty strong argument to make that The Invisibles - well let's say utilized that kinda misfit outsider team dynamic that the X-Men has always done so well (and - yeah - I'm guessing people already know the story about how the Doom Patrol was created at the same time as the X-Men [6]?)and so - yeah - I got a bit of a kick seeing the kind of things Morrison could get up to now he managed to get his grubby hands on the source rather than having to deal with offshoots: a bit like seeing someone graduate from writing fan-fiction to dealing with the real thing [7]: so yeah that was kinda cool (especially when it had Phil Jimenez doing the art - seeing how he did The Invisibles: Bloody Hell in America (oh: and a few storylines too I think...)). And I really liked Ethan Van Sciver - who had this whole groovy Chris Weston thing going on (I don't know how to properly describe - but it's almost like there's a - erm - jerkiness - in the figures - and I mean that in a good way: although I guess it doesn't sound like it...hmmm. It feels like I really need to start to develop my vocabulary when it comes to describing people's artwork - maybe I should read some art criticism books or something like that? I dunno). Plus I guess since we're talking abut artists: Book 8 is drawn by Marc Silvestri - which doesn't really mean anything to me - but I think he's like a big deal or something [8].

And - well - yeah: Morrison is always good with the nice little one-liners ("I know, it sometimes seems like everyone wants to be a persecuted minority these days.") and (ha) it's pretty funny seeing his preconceptions bubbling across the surface of his books [9].

But - hey - if you haven't had the joy yet: you really should. It's got Wolverine and his claws and Beast and action and adventure and all the rest of it: and it's very much a cut above nearly all the other superhero bumf [10] out there - sadly: it won't change your world or cure the blind nor heal the sick: but - hey - it's comics. You know - for kids.

....................................................................................................................................................
[1] MorrisonCon anyone?

[2] I think I've linked to this before somewhere - but what the hell: "It’s my fault, of course. I believed the hype. I believed in what Grant Morrison said and wrote, so I just set myself up for disappointment. Judging by this interview, what I should have done, were I not a weary cynic ready to burn down the temple (“the temple!”), was to assume that Morrison was just a cog in the machine and not take him so seriously, I guess. But the thing is, I’m not a weary cynic. I’m a fan. I’m a fan who followed Morrison’s writings in comics and elsewhere, looking for and generally receiving knowledge jewels or great laughs. I’m not a cynic or critic that’s just aching to throw a sacred cow on the rack. I’m disappointed that the persona this guy sold me was a smokescreen, and that the real guy is someone I disagree with on a lot of different things. I feel played, if anything. Later in the interview, Morrison says that he “still feel[s] the same way I do about the monarchy, the class system, about everything I’ve ever written, about everything I will write.” Word? We don’t believe you." And that's coming from the same writer who wrote that Grant Morrison's New X-Men was so good that it Ruined the X-Men: "Grant Morrison made the X-Men grown-up. He eschewed stereotypical supervillain stories until the tail end of his run, and even those stories were layered with a depth of character and nuance that kept them above generic megalomania."

[3] I guess in order to properly get that All Star Superman effect it would have to be a X-Men story that existed outside proper continuity - but having said that: Morrison has managed to pull off that kind of bug-eyed, widescreen craziness with his Batman run - so I guess the X-Men was sorta a trial run as he discovered all the ins-and-outs and worked out just how to make a monthly mainstream comic book work in the way that matched all his strengths as a writer.

[4] Special mention going to Book 2's Nuff Said wordless issue ("'Nuff Said" being a little experiment Marvel tried out across all their titles where the challenge was to see if the writers and artists could pull off a whole issue without the use of any word ballons - obviously Grant Morrison got a whiff of this concept and then preceded to turn in a trippy-dreamy-trip-through-someone's-mind-type-thing that ended up kinda reminding me at least of Jean Giraud (note to self: try and get some Moebius books for Islington).

[5] When I read Seaguy - I was flicking through some stuff online and checking out what people had said and I found a few references here and there (normally I would give you the links - but - hey - it's been a long day at work and I can't really be bothered to go search - so sorry: you're just going to have to take my word for it): but apparently the exuberant wackiness of Seaguy came about from the build-up of pressure of Marvel head office (or whatever) shooting down Morrison's more outré ideas for the New X-Men which - damn - just makes me think: what would an uncensored version of this series have looked like? (And does anyone know specifically what ideas didn't make the cut? Because - frankly - I kinda dying to find out...).

[6] Point: "The Doom Patrol, which debuted in comics three months before everybody's favorite, more marketable mutants. Unlike the X-Men, the Doom Patrollers were once normal people who suffered an accident that disfigured them but also gave them superpowers. Shunned by the world for just being plain ugly, the freaks were gathered by Doctor Caulder, a paraplegic, who thought that maybe the world wouldn't dislike them so much if they used their powers to save the normal people's asses from giant robots once in a while.If this sounds somewhat familiar to you, it's because the same thing as X-Men with the only difference that the smart guy in the wheelchair was bald in one and X-Men uses mutants as an allegory for minorities instead of people with elephantiasis or whatever the heck Doom Patrol was going for." / Counter-point: "As Don Markstein and others have stated previously, the production lag makes it highly unlikely that The Doom Patrol influenced the creation of the X-Men. Stan Lee would had to have been told about the concept well before My Greatest Adventures #80 hit the stands. (Plus, Doom Patrol/X-Men certainly isn’t the only coincidence in concept and timing: See The Red Tornado/The Vision and Man-Thing/Swamp Thing.)That point is certainly open to speculation — Doom Patrol co-creator Arnold Drake certainly thought Marvel had ripped off the idea — but it doesn’t amount to proof."

[7] Is there an example of that happening anywhere? The only one I can think of is in music with Judas Priest and Timothy S. "Ripper" Owens (he started out in a Judas Priest covers band - and then - ended up as the actual lead singer in Judas Priest: it's true - they even made a film about it with Mark Wahlberg).

[8] A quick google tells me that: "Silvestri began his career drawing issues for DC Comics and First Comics, but rose as a star at Marvel Comics, and is best known as one penciller of Uncanny X-Men between 1987 and 1990. He then spent two years pencilling its spin-off title Wolverine. In 1992, Silvestri became one of the original seven artists — along with Jim Lee, Whilce Portacio, Rob Liefeld, Erik Larsen, Todd McFarlane and Jim Valentino — to form the breakaway comics company Image Comics. He currently acts as the CEO for Top Cow Productions."

[9] I won't list all the instances of it: but let's just say that he definitely has a thing about stars (I'm guessing it's  because they're so epic and stuff (and if you don't believe me: well - go and read All Star Superman) and - a big big thing about corporations (I thought that I would save that little insight until Islington got a copy of Batman Incorporated but what the hey): I kinda noticed it in the first few books of New X-Men and - well - let's just say it gets a lot more pronounced as it goes along... And it's something that strikes me as - well - a little bit funny especially seeing how the way he deals with multi-conglomerates-internationals (or whatever) has changed from The Invisibles (where there's that whole bit about the City of London resting built upon a lake of "blood and sweat and shit") and Marvel Boy (hell - just go and read Marvel Boy already) into something - well - a lot more benign - which coincidentally (?) - also follows his rise from King Mob aka Mr Counterculture into - well - a more of a corporate lackey (I mean - I've already linked to lots of anti-Morrison stuff already - but what they hey: here's Tucker Stone: "But wait: if DC Comics is a temple, what does that make Grant Morrison, MBE, as one of the authors of its infallible proclamations (i.e. that comic where Superman sings at a 3D space-vampire)? Is he a High Priest of the Temple, pontiff anointed first among equals? Do we bow? Or salute? If Morrison turns out to be both a knight and a priest, under the rules of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, does that technically make him a paladin? Does he get +3 on his saving throws if confronted by an advanced Dungeon or a slightly less advanced Dragon? If I have a gelatinous cube problem, hypothetically located at or about the scrotum region, could he recommend a good paladin or penicillin? And in this rarefied papal bureaucracy that Sir Morrison has ascended through, by virtue of having written Howard Porter comics, what does that make you or I, the lowly pox-ridden serfs who tithe every odd Wednesday? What is our lot in life, the templegoers, but worship, reverence, obedience?"

[10] "Bumf" Origin: 1885–90; short for bumfodder.

....................................................................................................................................................
Links: 4th Letter Article: Grant Morrison Ruined the X-Men, I Am NOT the Beastmaster Article: New X-Men: Fanboy Style / New X-Men: Here Comes Tomorrow, Graphic Content: Raymond Chandler's Twelve Notes on the Mystery Story: New X-Men - Murder at the Mansion (Part One) / (Part Two).

Further reading: X-Men: Astonishing X-Men, Transmetropolitan, Marvel Boy, Seven Soldiers of Victory, Superman: All Star Superman, Ultimate X-Men, The InvisiblesBatman: Batman Incorporated.

Profiles: Grant Morrison, Frank Quitely.

All comments welcome.

Tuesday, 2 October 2012

Books: Pride and Prejudice

________________________________________________________________________________

Pride and Prejudice
Written by Jane Austen and Ian Edginton
Art by Rob Deas
2011




Available now from Islington Libraries
You can reserve this item for free here:
http://www.library.islington.gov.uk/TalisPrism/


I feel like I would be a little remiss if I didn't tell you (in brief) a conversation me and my girlfriend and literary flatmate had a few months ago (well - I say conversation - "heated argument" would also be a good description - but whatever) that was around the idea that works of fiction / works of art all have a limited shelf-life due to the fact that most of the time the thing that makes something special is how it breaks new ground (which means that they're normally greeted with some sort of uproar) three of the examples we talked about where Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring, Thomas Gainsborough's The Blue Boy and Mozart's The Magic Flute (yeah I know that this is a blog about comic books - but doesn't mean I still can't break out the culture now and again - you know? Especially - because - hey: we're talking (well - going to be talking) about Jane Austen here) and the point I was trying to make was that a big part of what made these works so great and infamous was due to how radical they were: and if you look at the history of popular art and popular culture - a lot of the really big important things that are out there were things that broke new ground in some way (if you want an example that's a little bit more comic booky: well - Watchmen is a good reference point: in that there's no way that someone who picks up and reads Watchmen now can really appreciate just how ground-breaking and unique it was when it first appeared - yeah?). But (and I guess this was my point) because all the really really good stuff that tends to ascend to the pantheon of the greats (or whatever) usually is built upon and intertwined with it's newness that means that after a while - inevitably - when people start ripping it off and stealing all the best elements (example? Ok how's about Nirvana's Nevermind? And all the Nicklebacks and Puddle of Mudds and Nine Black Alps that ended up spawning...) well - the thing that felt brand new - won't end up feeling so brand new anymore... (no duh). Of course along the course of this conversation / heated argument composure was lost a little all round and I ended up saying (yelling?) something like: "Jane Austen has nothing to tell us about being human!" [1]

Ok - wait - so maybe there's still more context needed: because while I was arguing that the thing that makes good books, films, operas, TV, comics, music, etc is a determination to push the limits of what these things can do and what they can say I also was trying to make the point that this continual striving and reaching out for - well (what?) - different forms of expression say is bound up with our own social evolution. That is to say: that if someone says that they are a film fan but only restrict themselves to films made in the first half of the 20th Century then (I would put forward) that maybe they haven't really understood what it is that movies are really supposed to do [2]. Say what? (I can hear you say) When then please tell us exactly what movies (and art or whatever [3]) are supposed to do. Well - they're supposed to interpret the world around us and reflect it back to us and show us - see - this is how things work, this is how they are and this is how they feel (and all sorts of stuff like that): you know there's somekind of cliché about how art (or whatever) is a form of communication between the person who makes it and the person who sees it: well - I guess that's at the centre of (whatever it is) I'm trying to say (what is it that I'm trying to say?). Well - I guess it's this: even tho you can watch old films and read old books and see old operas (and etc) and there is still lots and lots of value and entertainment that you can get from them (me? Yeah. I love a classic movie now and again) - I would argue that you're going to able to get a lot more from speaking to someone who's alive at the same time on the planet as you are than you would if you speaking to someone 100 years ago and - ok - yeah - it sure can be (or would be or whatever) interesting to speak to someone from all the way back before they had comic book blogs - but - well (my point! finally!) they're not going to be able to tell you much about what it means to be alive now at this point in human history or (if you wanna be much more blunt about it): Jane Austen can't tell you what it's like to be human (right? Do I sound less like a fascist now?).

But - alright - now that's all out of the way - (I don't really know why I had to say all of that stuff - but it seemed relevant somehow - and I guess he shows you why I'm not really a fan of Jane Austen). Because - well - yeah - I've never even ever read any Jane Austen. And (as far as my conscious brain can recall anyway) I've never even seen any TV or film adaptation (not even the one with Keira Knightly) and I haven't even bothered to try reading that Pride and Prejudice and Zombies book [4] that came out a few years ago (and hey like I've said elsewhere on here (mainly while talking about The Walking Dead) I frigging love zombies).(and it should give you some idea of where my head is at that in what is supposed to be an appraisal [5] of this Pride and Prejudice comic book and I'm talking about zombies).

But - hey: there's been a lot of superhero books on here recently (and even if Death Ray and Judge Dredd are technically a little out of the mainstream superhero framework - they're still making this blog smell a little bit like a boy's locker room (and we all know that's not a good smell)) so - hell - even if it feels like it's the last thing I wanna do (I'll admit now that this book has been sitting on my "to be read" pile for about a month now - hell - probably even longer) I'm going to take the plunge and give it a go... but going on I was pretty certain that it was gonna be pretty dry and boring...

But no. I guess what I should have realized before I started is that Jane Austen is one of the very few select authors that people nowadays (apart from all those poor kids who have to read it because their schools say so [6]) still decide to read for fun. And that's because - well: her books (well - to be clear - the sense of her books that I got from reading this comic book adaption -so (you know) I'm not exactly an Austen scholar or anything like that) are pretty damn entertaining. I always thought that it was a little queer how there was so much Austen always appearing on the screen - but everyone is so damn talky all the time that it makes sense that you'd want to get some actors in and have them perform some of that rapid scatter-shot dialogue for real [7]. I mean - even tho I kinda pride myself on having a pretty voluptuous vocabulary - there were a few sentences here and there that I had to read over a few times before I could work exactly what was being said (best example: ""There is a meanness to all the arts which ladies sometimes condescend to employ for the purpose of captivation. Whatever bears affinity to cunning is despicable.").

A few other random thoughts: on the back cover they make a big deal of Pride and Prejudice being one of the most romantic stories ever told (or something: I didn't write it down and I don't have the book to hand) and I must admit that my heart strings were gently tugged: but the idea that it's the romantic story ever - I mean - wouldn't the story with the most romance also be pretty boring as an actual - well - story? Person A meets Person B - they both realise how suited they are for each other - and fall in love and move into together: I mean - that's the most romantic story ever. The main type of romantic story that we tend to tell in our culture (pretty much all of which - no duh - kinda owe a lot to Pride and Prejudice) mainly revolve around Person A meeting Person B and having them both fail to realise how suited they are for each other: which to this cynic doesn't really seem all that romantic (or better) it just makes them seem a little bit slow on the uptake [8].

As a comic book - it all works pretty well tho. It kept doing this thing where for all the exterior shots they used this computer generated stuff that makes things look a little bit - well - cheap I guess (although - the reflections in the window on that carriage are pretty nice and it more than makes up for it by the way it uses background colour when the sparks start flying between Mr Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet (pink at one point - white at another).

Plus (I realise that this is probably just me): but Mr. Bennet really really reminded me of the way that fathers tend to be depicted in manga and anime  - inscrutable and unruffable and always standing around with a sly smile spread across his face. Anyone else have the same feeling? No? Just me then.

And - well - yeah: in conclusion: I've gladly admit - judging from this comic at least - that Jane Austen does indeed write very well and it pretty handle with the 19th Century version of zingers ("The more I see of the world, the more am I dissatisfied with it") and snappy replies ("Do not consider me now as an elegant female intending to plague you, but as a rational creature speaking the truth from her heart.") - do I wish that I had read the actual proper book? No way - I think that would have been a commitment that would have been a little beyond my powers - but hey: praise the lord for comic books - right?

............................................................................................................................................
[1] I thought about maybe fudging this and making it into something that sounded a little bit less harsh and a little bit less crazy - but - hey - you should own the things you say - right? (And also my girlfriend or literary flatmate might read this and want to correct me in some sort of embarrassing way...).

[2] I can't actually remember how this conversation started - but it would make sense that maybe it was down to Sight and Sound's The Top 50 Greatest Films of All Time thing.

[3] Art? I don't really know what it is - but there has always been something that seriously bugs me about the word "art" - maybe one day I might try putting it into words on here somewhere - but for the time being I guess it's the only real description that fits - but please know that I use it only under (my own) duress.

[4] Which is a total pain in the bum to shelve at the library - seeing how it says it's written by Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith: so - argh! - does it go in the As or the Gs? Also: I wonder if Seth Grahame-Smith ever chanced upon Merchant Ivory Production of Terminator 3

[5] Seems as good a word as any. Calling these posts "reviews" has never really struck me as quite right especially seeing how a lot of the time I use the books to talk about other stuff and then at the end just kinda flump things with a little: "yeah - it's a good story and the artwork is very [adjective]." But - hey - whatever.

[6] And if any of you guys are reading this - well - my heart goes out to you yeah?

[7] Depending on who you are I'd say it's all very Beatrice and Benedick / Hildy Johnson and Bruce Baldwin / or - hell - anyone in an Aaron Sorkin thingie (although seeing how I'm probably the last person in the world to actually get around to experiencing Pride and Prejudice I realise that I'm like the last guy to arrive to the party - "Hey guys - there's a big bowl of punch in the other room!" "Yeah - we know." "Wow - everyone's dancing in this big room downstairs and they're playing Britney!" "Yeah - we know." "And - hey - Pride and Prejudice - erm - it's really dialogue heavy - but it's really good because it's like a screwball comedy and everyone's always dropping loads of zinger and stuff and it's really entertaining!" "Yeah dude: everyone here has read it so: we know - we know.")

[8] In fact - after watching Requiem for a Dream I made the obvious crack on the internet about how it's the best anti-drug commercial ever made - to which regular commenter Tam responded (hi Tam!) - that actually it's more a warning about how stupid people shouldn't take drugs. And connecting those dots I guess my point is that - well - stupid people are really good for building drama around especially seeing as most of the time drama consists in people making all sorts of bad and wrong decisions - and if people are going to constantly level-headed and only doing things which are in their best interests - well - that would be boring.

............................................................................................................................................
Links: Forbidden Planet Blog Review,

Further reading: Sherlock Holmes: The Hound of the Baskervilles / A Study in Scarlet / The Sign of the Four / The Valley of Fear, Don Quixote, H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds, Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book StoriesGemma Bovery.

All comments welcome.