Submitted for approval

Change of Address.

2010-01-28T20:45:00.003-05:00

I blog here now:

Submitted for your approval,

Joe.

Carver in the Rough

2009-09-05T21:07:00.009-04:00

Artist types throw around their "influences" an awful lot, but generally I think they assign that title to the greats of their profession for the sake of an answer. At least, the number of times I've furrowed in my brow in doubt or confusion when reading or hearing of someones influences far outweighs the times I solemnly nod my head in acceptance. For me as a writer, one of the few people who I can undoubtedly call a true influence is minimalist short story writer Raymond Carver.

Before I read Carver, I don't believe I knew how to read like a writer, or at the very least, I couldn't do it as well. As is the minimalist tradition, themes, and often the very plot in his writing, is drastically understated. They exist in minute details, subtext, and symbols. This applies to length, of course as well. I don't know that I even consider it so much a style as much as an example of the level of subtlety every writer should strive for. A number of my stories, most notably The Murder, are directly influenced by his work. Needless to say, his work is important to me.

I recently read on the New York Times website that Library of America will be publishing a volume of all of Carver's work before it was edited by Gordon Lish for publication. It's no secret that Carver's work blossomed in the hands of his editors-- the level of subtlety he achieved cannot be discussed without some attribution to them. Despite my overwhelming curiosity, I can't help but worry about the significance of the transformitive abilities a liberal use of the proverbial scissors. Is it Carver who has helped shape my writing, or someone else entirely?

It's a precarious situation, especially because by the time Carver arrived at his final collection, Cathedral, his writing style was noticeably different. Not bad, far from it-- some consider it his best work-- but the stories become "easier" to read; The intent isn't nearly as shadowed. Will an unearthing of his unedited work reveal more of a direct bridge from one way of working to another? Was it more progressive than a simple early period, middle period, late period? Probably-- and given that my own favorite stories by Carver come from What We Talk About When We Talk About Love-- what would be considered a part of his middle period, it's likely the most significant number of changes will be in these very stories.

I learned as much about writing and reading from Carver than I have from any professor I've ever had, if not more and I certainly have more affection for him than any of them as well. I certainly plan to read the forthcoming publication (at least I will after I read several of his collections as they currently stand. My experience with Carver was with Where I'm Calling From, a 500+ page collection encompassing work from his entire career) and I'm pleased that what Carver deemed finished will finally get published but it remains unnerving. He is a genius regardless, but not necessarily my influential teacher.

P.S. Initial skimming of the comparison link on the Times Page is rather disheartening.

Comic Review Wednesdays - Justice League: Cry for Justice #3

2009-09-02T22:11:00.003-04:00

Justice League:Cry for Justice #3
Written by James Robinson
Art by Mauro Cascioli

I read three pages of this and threw the comic down in frustration. That is all I have to say.

My previous reviews of this miniseries, which I desperately hoped would improve, should say everything that needs to be said.

RATING: N/A (Likely, 2 out of 10 for only the artwork).

Disney buys Marvel

2009-08-31T13:56:00.004-04:00

I considered giving this blog a somewhat clever or inventive title, but when it comes down to it, I think the news is staggering enough. Early this morning Disney bought Marvel Entertainment for about the sum of 4 Billion dollars. While major news outlets focus on the buy, and what it mean for Disney shareholders, I can't help wondering what it means for Marvel Entertainment.

It's ironic that the buy should happen at the same time Marvel is celebrating its seventieth anniversary. The characters in Marvel Comics are American Icons; perhaps not to the degree of those at DC, but its difficult to doubt the notoriety of the likes of Spider-man, or Wolverine. Disney, in fact, is only about as old as Marvel itself; their first feature film (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs) hitting theaters the same year Marvel's, then Timely, first comic hit the shelves. This is perhaps the biggest reason the news is difficult to comprehend; both companies seem equally indestructible so the notion that one old fish has swallowed another is perplexing.

This aside, I think the buy means trouble for the Marvel stable. Disney is now notorious for its franchise buy outs: The company now own the rights not only to their own properties, but also to those of the Pixar Properties, the Jim Henson properties, and now those at Marvel. Not to be a negative Nancy, but consider the entertainment presence the Jim Henson characters since the buy out in 2002. The characters, it seems to me, have been exploited for merchandising purposes but have been used for little else. I could be wrong but nothing comes to mind aside from some DVD releases, and some toys.

The major reason I'm concerned is that I believe Marvel understood the success of their properties was dependant on comic sales. While they're not the most economically successful, they're what continues to generate fans, and keeps fans enthusiastic about other media releases. Of course Marvel itself has been doing a thoroughly disgusting job exploiting its material for toys, TV shows, and movies with the intent to move beyond the comics, so perhaps a de-emphasis is inevitable. I'm concerned because Disney-- a company that booted out hand drawn animation because it wasn't selling despite it being the backbone of the company, and that it wasn't selling largely because of the poor artistic decisions being made-- has a strong fiscal focus. You may say, "Well, yeah, they're a cooperation" but what I mean is that their decisions don't seems to be effected by artistic, traditional, or social influences. I wouldn't doubt for a second that their return to 2D animation musicals has been driven by the mixed success of their own (non-Pixar) 3D movies, and the ever building nostalgia for the Disney Renaissance. I think I'm just now waiting for the news that the company that remorselessly threw out their drafting tables will be doing the same to the printing press.

The other concern-- should Disney spare the printed page-- is artistic. Disney of course makes some wonderful material, but it's hard to ignore that even the darkest of material at Disney isn't that dark. Marvel, by contrast, is a very adult in its material. Captain America shot dead, Norman Osborn's usurpation of control, and others are just some of the examples of artistic decisions that would potentially have been hampered with by Disney Execs at the top. While I'm sure control won't be hands on, there is bound to be company mandates. I expect Marvel will very quickly become the "safe" comic company. Remember Disney is a company whose darker properties include Pirates of the Caribbean. Disney won't be interested in older comic readers, but young kids who favor the television shows. The movie properties are likely to suffer this as well: More like Spider-man, less Dark Knight or Iron Man.

I'm hardly trying to "sound the alarm" here-- I'm actually fairly indifferent at present. If and when what I expect to happen does, I imagine the feelings will be different; I grew up on these comics, but the fact is in the face of Marvel's radical story choices and commercialization, I've been moving to DC naturally, anyway.

DC is in fact now more accurately comparable to Marvel. DC is of course owned by Warner Brothers who have-- astoundingly-- been fairly hands off except in the way of movie production. However, I feel Disney has too much of its own agenda and is more focused on lining up a commercially successful pendant for boys to their Princess line for girls. The biggest threat to the Marvel Universe is no longer Dr. Doom; it's Mickey Mouse.

What do you think the acquisition means? Is this what Marvel meant what they told us to accept change? Are the Disney executives, in fact, skrulls?

Oh Look... An Affair... [A Movie Review]

2009-08-28T20:37:00.005-04:00

Jerichow

Opened (U.S.) May 15th 2009

Directed by: Christian Petzold

Written by: Christian Petzold

Thomas (Benno Furmann), a former solider in Afghanistan, is down on his luck; he has no money, no job, and no prospects. On a walk home from the grocery store, he overhears the crash of a passing SUV. This is how Thomas meets Ali (Hilmi Sozer), an ill-tempered drunkard, and the owner of several fast-food-type outlets. After Ali's licence is suspended for drunk driving, he employs Thomas to take him to his various establishments. This also acquaints Thomas with Ali's beautiful wife Laura (Nina Hoss). Here things begin to get complicated.

Foreign film is generally a very different beast than American film, and that's certainly the case with Jerichow. An American film with this exact same set up would have tight pacing, several major plot reversals, and very likely a character who was bat-shit crazy. It would be heavily suspenseful, with edge of your seat type tension. A thriller. And While Jerichow is billed as a thriller, it is also a foreign film, which means the approach, and the interests are very different.

Jerichow is a surprisingly slow-paced movie that seems to have no problem taking a pedestrian look at this potentially explosive situation. It seems in many ways oblivious to the fact that it's supposed to entertain audiences. There are of course surprising moments, brutal moments, and a tenuous sense that something is going to happen, but rarely does it feel as though you're watching a movie in the American sense. This is fine until you begin to get tired and bleary-eyed, which is likely to happen to anyone save the diehard foreign film aficionados more accustomed to the pacing.

The film is generally fairly conventional, save for a major turn of events only ten minutes until the end. This aspect of the film, aside of setting the film apart from what you might expect, makes Ali a much more complex, fascinating character. In fact, it makes you question his motives for the entire length of the film. In this respect, the film succeeds. The characters in Jerichow are all fairly well crafted, and move on their own volition. In the case of Thomas and Laura, this might be why the film seems so mundane.

Despite its better moments, Jerichow is too conventional for too much of the film, and-- seemingly-- too indifferent to its subject matter. Also, the ending, while powerful, feels lazy and doesn't come as a surprise. Hardly bad, hardly exceptional, its the kind of movie that prevents me from renting foreign films blindly.

VERDICT: C+

Comic Review Wednesdays - Detective Comics #856

2009-08-26T20:42:00.003-04:00

Detective Comics #856

Batwoman:

Written by Greg Rucka

Art by J. H. Williams III

The Question:

Written by Greg Rucka

Art by Cully Hamner

The thirteen cults of Gotham get ever stranger in Batwoman, as monsters step out into the shadows and complicate the standoff between Kate and Alice. Later, Kate's love life starts to heat up as more supporting characters are introduced into the series. In the Question, Renee fights for her life as the search for Louisa Soliz unfolds into something much worse.

One of the significant ways in which super-hero comics are unique from other media is that the characters exist in an open-ended universe. Their stories aren't finite. At the same time writers are expected to make stories approachable for readers. With Greg Rucka's Batwoman run on Detective, I've tried to be patient, and I've chaulked a lot up to Kate Kane being a new character, and that her origin-- soon to be explored fully in upcoming issues-- would unfold at its own pace. I assumed that any backstory would at least be covered enough to fill readers in. Three issues in, I'm still pretty clueless as to what is going on.

To be fair, the title isn't necessarily bad, but when approaching any Bat-title there is a reasonable expectation that it's going to be grounded in reality. Guns, knives, mob bosses and psychopaths as opposed to capes, monsters and alternate dimensions. With this issue there is a shift in tone from the bat-world to something more along the lines of Alan Moore's Swamp Thing, or any other title related to the supernatural. As a reader unfamiliar with the character's history before her usurpation of Detective Comics, the shift came as a bit of a shock. When you say "cult" in a Batman comic it still generally means "crazy people." In addition to the unexpected change in tone-- which is an assumption in itself because of this next reason-- I have no idea of how these elements actually play into the characters story. Omissions forgivable at the title's inception are not becoming annoying. On the other side of the coin, I absolutely LOVE that he's continuing to pull characters and events from his run on Gotham Central.

These problems aside, there's little to criticize the comic for. Rucka delivers a solid plot, and writes his dialog well. I do take issue that he puts both of the lesbian characters in tuxedos-- while certainly a realistic enough choice, it just feels too butch. Perhaps gender roles are simply too firmly ingrained in me, but I don't think so.

J.H. Williams III panel design continues to be outstanding (though I feel he occasionally over does it), and the work is generally fantastic. Still, something has been bothering me about this run since it began and I believe it's in colorist Dave Stewart. When Kate is featured as Batwoman, the pages are generally very blue/cool palette, except Kate herself, of course, who is stands out with stunning blacks and reds. When Kate is depicted in her everyday life, she's often depicted as very pale-- seemly an attempt to single her out in the everyday, at which point in the comic Stewart uses more of a warm palette. The problem is that Kate looks like a corpse during the day, and the pages never feel right when buttressed up against the stunning Batwoman pages. The only image of Kate out of costume I had ever seen prior to reading the book was a picture of her from 52 in a red dress, and looking like an absolute bomb-shell. My idea of the character from that image turned out to be very different from what the character is actually like-- tuxedos and tattoos-- but I truly believe one of the major things standing in the way of my liking her is that its awful hard to relate to the walking dead.

The Question continues to play out like a 40s serial-- due in large to the fact that Rucka has begun and ended each segment, more or less, with the character's life in danger. I've made my piece with this, but I've still yet to come to terms with the artwork. As readers will know I hardly ever comment on art, I really feel as though I'm unqualified, but the work of Cully Hamner and colorist Laura Martin feels so distinctly feminine I can't help but feel it's completely out of place in The Question. Renee, of course, is a very different character than Vic Sage, but the style in the 80s Question series was so effectively moody and noir that it's difficult not to compare the two to the female duo's disadvantage. Hamner and Martin together create a comic that seems far too cartoony for the character. Hamner's figures are also very stiff--at the very least they are during fight scenes, and this certainly doesn't help the over-all effect.

RATING: 6 out of 10.

Rucka is an entertaining writer, even if the story is a bit confusing for new readers, and the art is a mixed bag. Rucka's run began three issues ago for those looking to start reading but if you're at it you might as well pick up his Gotham Central run and the Crime Bible to help yourself out.

Comic Review Wednesdays - Mighty Avengers #28

2009-08-19T20:01:00.004-04:00

Mighty Avengers #28
Plotted by Dan Slott
Scripted by Christos N. Gage
Pencils by Khoi Pham

The Mighty Avengers have been busy since they assembled. Between the unspoken threatening Earth, and a traitor in their midst it doesn't seem like things are going to be slowing down anytime soon. Quite the opposite, really. By all appearances it seems like things are about to boil over; the scarlet witch confronted, cameos abound, and the Earth facing extinction? The heat hasn't broken yet, and it doesn't look to be getting any cooler this Fall.

Gage's script is something of a difficult beast. On one hand, it's impossible to deny that events have moved foreword, and on the other, it seems as nothing was really accomplished in this particular issue of Mighty Avengers. Indeed, the "Scarlet Witch Vs. Young Avengers" promise advertised on the cover (in both image and logo) is little more than a teaser. Largely this issue is a lot of set-up, with little plot pay-off, but Gage at least makes it interesting. The light that's shed on this stories villain makes him exceptionally more interesting, and that alone makes the ride a lot more fun. In addition to this bit of character work, the issue also sets up a new major conflict, proves a few laughs, and delivers a sold fight scene for the action hounds. To be blunt, it makes a run down the checklist "necessary components" but doesn't do too much else. Solid, but unremarkable.

For this reason it's a difficult comic to review. Certainly Gage could likely have made better use of some of his precious comic pages/panels but it's hard to hold it against him. It's with issues like this that a person begins to understand the difference between good writer, and great writer, and that's often a difficult line to uncover. Even with Slott-- A solid plotter, hysterical character writer-- at his side, Gage's issue simply feels on the "good" side of adequate. The kind of comic you didn't hate, but might not pick up again. Money is tight after all.

I'm not one for ambivalence-- generally, I think it indicates ignorance, if not stupidity but tonight all I really can muster to say about this is "It was okay."

RATING: 6 out of 10.
To be redundant, it was everything you'd expect an issue of Mighty Avengers with Slott's name attached to be, but with nothing to write home about. Slott/Gage's Mighty Avengers has been a fun, if obscurely decorated ride and this issue is merely a breather in which characters are moved around for awhile so that the plot can continue. To hook into this title you'll need this issue, and issue 27 at the very least.

Quality is Elusive, Sorta

2009-08-16T10:32:00.007-04:00

It's hard being a film snob. These days movies are all made for thirteen year old boys, and to face facts-- the high-octane, CGI heavy, sexuality flaunting fare that makes them soil their pants is hardly for anyone else, but particularly not for a film snob. Confined in a small city-- the largest theater in which has a respectable but thoroughly inefficient twelve(?) screens-- it has been a difficult few months.

Typically I'm not one to go to the movies. Not because I don't love the experience, or movies, but because my transportation is limited (albeit willfully). Still, I take comfort in the fact that should I want to Savannah's Regal/Wynnsong 21-screen partnership could accommodate me. In Utica, however, and undoubtedly in rural, and "nameless" cities across the country there is no such luxury. An eight screen theater can only screen the standard studio turnout (Plotless CGI action movie, cookie-cutter romantic comedy, Pixar-type knockoffs, and volume-based "scary" movies). So as I've seen trailers for films such as Whatever Works, The Hurt Locker, (500) Days of Summer, and Paper Hearts-- plus countless movies I've read reviews for in EW-- I've been ripping my hair out in frustration. For the first time in a long time I have easy access to a movie theater, and where are all the films I'm dying to see? Wherever they are, they're not here.

As an admitted film snob, I'll be the first to say that I'm obviously in the minority. There are-- though I shudder to think of it-- millions of people more than happy to see Transformers or G.I. Joe. The question is why. The American public isn't so stupid as all of that, I assure you. They can't be, because if they were we'd be facing extinction tomorrow. Certainly these types of film will always have a market, there will always be people who were dropped on their heads as children, but the success of these mind-numbing movies can only be because of a limited marketplace. When you need food, you buy what you can get-- even if it looks awful, you hope it tastes better then it looks. If you want to go to the movies, you see what's playing.

I don't mean to give the American public more credit than they deserve. Fact: People will continue to like bad movies, and will continue to see them. Fact: People will continue to be unable to "read" trailers to determine what the quality of the movie will be. But, in a more diverse marketplace I can't imagine smarter films failing. Don't the good/great action movies end up doing better then the bad ones? Don't most good TV shows outlive bad ones? Yes, occasionally the American public drops the ball but more often then not something of quality will do better than its poorly constructed counterpart. Sadly, this doesn't include books as about half of the home-run success (Oprah picks excluded) are duds (Di Vinchi Code, Twilight, Mitch Albom), but whoever suggested the American public were readers anyway?

The American public doesn't know what it's missing, and frankly their ignorance is torture. I've always believed there is a complacency with the main stream-- and therefore an obstinacy about searching beyond it. That requires some work, and meanwhile we could be watching Scary Movie 13. In any event, its been a tough summer. None of the four movies I've seen this summer (Up, Public Enemies, The Proposal, Julie & Julia) won me over, and worse they're the only films I cared to see (save Bruno, which I didn't get to see) to come to theaters in the past eight weeks or so. District 9 might prove to be my savior, I truly hope it is, because otherwise this summer has been devoid of any good films.

The silver lining: we film snobs are not alone. After my four hour day at Munson Williams Proctor this Friday, I grabbed lunch and returned to the museum to go through a gallery I hadn't been to in awhile. To my surprise, the museums theater was open and tickets were being collected. I had largely been dismissive of the museum's film series, not even bothering to see what was playing, but with the Uptown Theatre playing the revolting trio of G.I. Joe, Aliens in the Attic, and The Ugly Truth-- I figured I didn't have much to lose. What I watched was a beautifully shot French film from 2008 entitled Seraphine, and while it didn't leave me starry-eyed, it was undoubtedly the best film experience of the summer. Who would have thought Utica had an art-house scene, much less a lively enough one to fill 1/3 of a museum theater at 2PM? And the upcoming movies? This years Academy Award Winner for best foreign film, The Hurt Locker, and (500) Days of Summer (though regrettably I'll be in Savannah for the last). No excuse America, you need to smarten up!

P.S.- Ironicly, this blog comes at a time when the major movie theater has two movies I want to see. Ah, Timing- you suck.

Comic Review Wednesdays - Adventure Comics #1

2009-08-12T19:43:00.005-04:00

Adventure Comics #1
Superboy (22-Page feature):
Written by: Geoff Johns
Art by: Francis Manapul

Legion of Super-Heroes (8-Page co-feature):
Written by Geoff Johns
Art by Clayton Henry

The super-hero comic has changed a lot since its inception in the 1930s. Characters are more complex, there are few moral absolutes, provocative social and political statements are far from unheard of, and events are rarely isolated incidents. Throughout his career, Geoff Johns has been able to continually do the impossible: weave well-plotted, character complex, pure super-hero genre comics without stepping into the post-modern quagmire. Adventure Comics, Johns' newest title, is no different and it promises to be as good as any of his previous endeavours.

First issues can often put a particular strain on a writer-- it's expected that a staus quo will not only be established but broken in a mere twenty-two pages while also setting up the necessary set pieces of the comic. Johns, expert that he is, doesn't miss a beat. Rather than bogging himself down with the exposition around how Superboy has returned from the dead (all previously revealed, I believe), he starts the narrative with him back on Earth, returning to the Kent farm. From here he seems to introduce every major supporting player (or at the very least alludes to their future presence) that will play a role in the stories to come. By the end of the issue Johns hasn't quite shaken up the status quo, but he has provided enough questions so that readers simply cannot refuse to come back.

Additionally it seems to be welcoming new comers to Superboy with open arms. A certain working knowledge of the DC universe is necessary, of course, but there are few lingering plot lines surrounding the character that would alienate anyone. The one remnant that may pose a problem does seem to be his return to Earth (and Life!), but the opening threads of the series seemed poised to answer even those questions.

Lastly, It should be noted that Johns seems to be making astounding use out of his co-feature. Rather than two separate narratives, he has melded Superboy and Legion of Superheroes into one, the co-feature literally supporting the feature with illusions to upcoming events. In addition, unlike Rucka, Johns seems to be doing wonderful things with the co-feature on its own as well. There were certainly some strong character moments in its short eight pages span. The last page of the co-feature, acting quite appropriately as a "next-time" preview melds wonderfully with the already movie serial feel they have.

RATING: 10 out of 10!
Johns is working magic! I haven't wanted to read more of a monthly in a long, long time. Please, read this comic. SUPERBOY IS BACK!

Academics Arn't Enough [A Book Review]

2009-08-12T11:38:00.007-04:00

Admission
A novel by Jean Hanff Korelitz
Published in April 2009

With the slightest amount of trepidation (ever so little!) it's placed in the mail. It falls into the lap of an faceless judge. Their decision is life-altering. College admissions: An experience that is immediately relatable even years later, and a ubiquitous plague in adolescent culture. Jean Hanff Korelitz newest novel, Admission, is not only a behind-the-scenes look into the cloaked world of college admissions, but also a thorough examination of what Admission is. However, though Academically literary, the novel isn't without -- a rather odd set of-- problems.

Portia Nathan, an admissions officer for Princeton, is thoroughly invested in her work. She travels to high schools, has a strong commitment to the applicants whose files she reads, and she believes what she does it worth while. Her life, as it is, is comfortable. Her past, however, is not. Portia's life gets turned upside down when a secret from her past meets her face to face, and she's forced to make life-altering decisions that don't involve faceless knowledge-hungry teenagers.

The themes of Korelitz novel are almost immediately identifiable. Within the first one-hundred pages it becomes quite clear what Korelitz is working toward, and this is in itself problematic. The novel, and its themes are fairly straightforward and the intention seems to be that the reader is to be pressed to read further in the hopes of uncovering Portia's secret, and indeed; finding out if the charming teenagers in the beginning of the novel do indeed get into Princeton. The problem isn't with the latter-- in fact a majority of the emotional investment in the novel is bound to be for the young Jeremy Balakian, a character that is at once likable and attention stealing.

The problem-- ironically enough-- is with Portia herself. By revealing the novel's themes too quickly, the reader becomes too aware of the game Korelitz is playing. The reader has a firm understanding of the Portia's situation without any clear details and mere circumspection. This fact that Korelitz does not reveal the truth until late in the novel is unproblematic, what's problematic is Portia's thought process. She is exhaustive, and occasionally repetitive. She will leave you screaming at the book to hurry up *beep* up. She is the proof chauvinistic men everywhere are looking for that proves "women think too much." The problem of course, is that all of this is totally in character with the protagonist. The clearest solution would have been to keep her themes more aloof, because if the intent weren't so transparent-- built to lead to the inevitable-- there would likely be some large amount of patience for Portia's rambling thought process. As it is Portia feels stubbornly in the way of the reader trying to uncover her secret-- which isn't in itself that pressing anyway.

Less damaging, but no less infuriating is the novel's quasi-elitist position. A non-Ivy League reader can only hear how special everyone who applies to Princeton is before there is a sense of resentment-- yes, everyone who applies to Princeton is a shinning star, but what of the thousands of people who weren't the "Most likely to succeeds"? The novel makes no mention of the people who would have had no chance of getting in, and though a bit of silly immaturity, it breeds resentment. The "common man" will feel blown out of the water reading this novel in which the excellent are mediocre. It's demoralizing-- occasionally insulting, and perhaps appropriately-- tough to admit personal inadequacy. Will everyone feel this way reading it? Certainly not, but the reality is it's there and makes for a difficult stretch of reading.

Admission employs all of the tools that typically launch novels to literary success, but it's a frustrating read that evokes annoyance more than anything else. While Jeremy Balakian is a wonderful-- you sincerely hope he will get into Princeton-- his character is more minor than he perhaps should be. Korelitz novel simply doesn't quite make the cut. Maybe wait list.

VERDICT: B-

Rotten Ingrediants [A Movie Review]

2009-08-11T07:56:00.005-04:00

Julie & Julia
Opened August 7th 2009
Directed by Nora Ephron
Screenplay by Nora Ephron

Bon Appetit!, The phrase, when carried by her unique voice is at once identifiable. Julia Child is a cooking icon and even those who didn't grow up in her heyday are familiar enough with her to smile at the thought of the charming, if awkward way she carried herself. Julie & Julia simultaneously strives to explore how Julia Child the woman became the icon, and what exactly her legacy is. The "Julia" half of the movie begins with Julia Child's (Meryl Streep) arrival in France, and her quest to find "something to do" -- which of course quickly becomes her track to cooking stardom. The "Julie" half of the movie follows Julie Powell (Amy Adams) circa 2002, in the wake of 9/11, as she moves to Queens with her husband Eric (Chris Messina) and begins to literally work her way through Julia Child's first cookbook-- Mastering the Art of French Cooking.

If it needs to be said, let it be said outright that Meryl Streep is an absolute star, and-- if the trailer weren't evidence enough, let me assure you-- breathes life into the role of Julia Child. The entire "Julia" section of the film is a thoroughly charming experience, that is carried not only by Streep but by many the supporting players as well. If writer/director Nora Ephron had left the film at this, it would have been well on its way to being an uncomplicated, but nice and thoroughly entertaining film. Unfortunately this isn't the case.

The problems with the "Julie" section of the film aren't immediately identifiable. Largely it's buttressed by the "Julia" section, and so its problems are difficult to identify without a certain amount of retrospect. It begins innocently enough-- Julie is in a tough situation, and empathy is fairly easily found, but as this section of the film moves on its soullessness becomes obvious. When characters are laughing riotously at something the audience isn't, you know this to be the case. When a character is called a "bitch" and there's no evidence of it in the film, you know this to be the case. Be it actors or material, a lot of things just don't come out right in the "Julie" half of the film. It might be surprising to learn that the trailer-featured clip of Julie saying "No fear, Julia" to an old episode of Cooking with Julia Child is supposed to be a heartfelt moment of the film. It feels empty-- again, soulless-- and frankly poorly acted. There is very little heart in the Julie section of the film-- but good enough helping of sap. Chris Messina comes off as authentic as often as he comes across as fake, and it'd be surprising to learn Amy Adams was playing anything more than herself.

This most distressing, and nagging problem of them film is when the two sections come the closest to meeting. Julia Child-- still alive in 2002-- has a secondhand contact with Julie Powell in the film, and the result is dangerous. The unity of Julie & Julia is based on the similarity of the two narratives, which functions perfectly until this seemingly minor event. Within a span of less than five minutes a wedge is sledgehammered in between these two narratives in the way the film references the still living Julia Child. In a strange and unexpected way it puts the two protagonists at ends, and it's frustrating. If these protagonists are at ends, how can their narratives not be? Why have they been placed together? The event is no doubt is a true to life account, but it destroys all cohesion. Omission or prefabrication would have served the film much better, inaccurate though it might have been.

Julie & Julia is somewhat like a game of Janga. At the beginning the tower seems perfectly stable, but as pieces begin to disappear, so does the possibility of solidity. The Julia section of the film-tower keeps the game in play, but even this isn't enough to save it from crashing down.

RATING: C

Comic Review Wednesdays: Justice League: Cry for Justice #2

2009-08-05T23:50:00.004-04:00

Justice League: Cry for Justice #2
Written by James Robinson
Art by Mauro Cascioli

Villains seem to always have the upper hand these days, and that's why Hal Jordan, The Green Lantern and Oliver Queen, Green Arrow, quit the justice league to pursue crime in their own way. Tragedy has struck several other superheroes, and they too are seeking justice. All clues seem to lead to Prometheus as the group begins to assemble itself for the first time.

James Robinson must have been reading the plays of Anton Chekhov when he wrote this issue because the number of scene omissions is outstanding. Unlike Chekhov, however, Robinson's omissions are aimless, frustrating, and destructive. The characters left last month screaming "Justice!" into the wind have now been on the trail of their enemies for three weeks, and it apparently hasn't been all sitting around time. Leads have been found, places attacked, and villains apprehended-- the missing terrain is so substantial that it feels an issue went unread.

If this weren't enough, the scene omissions cause destructive inter-issue confusion and frustration. Within these pages is a contrived, frivolous fight between Starman and Congorilla that does nothing for the issue (they become friends after!) but omitted is a fight between Green Lantern, Green Arrow, and a lot of super villain lackeys working for Prometheus. It's almost as if Robinson has lost all sense of storytelling structure! To make matters work, he spends an extensive amount of time discussing "off-stage" events that should have taken place between this comic and the last. The exposition is piss-poor, and bogs the issue down monumentally. There is virtually no foreword motion so much time is spent recounting details, and new events seem entirely coincidental and contrived because they've had no presence in-comic. If the events leading to Starman and Congorilla's fight aren't part of the narrative how can it not seem pointless? If Captain Marvel and others simply show up out of thin air with similar leads, how is it convincing?

Simply put there is just too much missing from this issue for it to be anywhere near decent. If Robinson needed a 9, 10, or 12 issue mini-series to put this story to paper then that is what it should have been planned to be instead of this confusing mess. This confusion is compounded by the fact that the issue is littered with references to major DC-universe events that more casual readers will find impossible to keep track of. The dead characters from the previous issue were difficult enough to keep track of, much less throwing in references to Identity and Final crisis.

Most annoying of all is Robinson's continued use if his own and Geoff Johns' friendly banter as the dialog for Green Lantern and Green Arrow. The source of inspiration is a good as any (although sounds pathetically juvenile), but when it reads like two comic writers talking as characters instead of two characters it becomes a major problem. Really. The most disgusting part of the whole thing is when the two characters refer to one anothers names in quotation marks ("Green Lantern", "Green Arrow") and the sneer-worthy in joke is shoved down the readers throat.

Cascioli's artwork continues to be the only redeeming aspect to this miniseries. It's gorgeous but unfortunately Robinson's long, boring dialog scenes to little to let the artist spread his wings.

RATING: 3 out of 10.
Last month I said that I was only reading this for Batwoman and the artwork. I'm no longer sure that's going to be enough as the artwork is all that saved this from getting a one. Don't read this title. If you're looking to punish someone you can likely find this and the first issue at your local comic book shop.

Running on Charm [A Movie Review]

2009-07-31T21:53:00.004-04:00

The Proposal
Opened on June 19th 2009
Directed by Anne Fletcher
Written by Pete Chiarelli

The concept is rather dull and uninventive: A hellish employer threatened by deportation bullies her assistant into a fraudulent engagement. Margaret (Sandra Bullock) is a tough no-nonsense editor that's hated by the office underlings, and Andrew(Ryan Reynolds) is a dedicated wish full filler desperate for promotion and publication after three long years under Margaret's relentless business practice. Their business-like, mutually beneficial engagement brings them to Andrew's home town where, in order to convince immigration officials, they announce their engagement to Andrew's family. Surprise, surprise, once the playing field levels out (their fates tied together), they don't get along too well.

To talk about this film as something creatively written seems absurd. In truth, like most comedies today, it's a hodgepodge of plot and comedic elements already tired bordering on dead. An eccentric old person, an inexplicable foreigner, some slapstick, and of course two "incompatible" people destined to develop feelings for one another. However, should you hold that against the film is a personal choice. With a concept so unshamefully recycled it seems hardly fair. After all, you don't criticize the handicapped if they can't color within the lines. If you can stomach the conceit then it's likely the rest will go down without too many hiccups (and be certain there are a few).

There is nothing about the creative aspects of this film that make it worth watching, but what this film does have is a tremendously likable cast that shines more as themselves than they do as their fairly simplistic characters. Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock have been in their fair share of clunkers (I don't believe there is a good Ryan Reynolds film. I've never seen an entire movie of his before now, but I've watched large sections of them for him alone) and The Proposal may not be much different but together the stars have a gooey warm chemistry (gross!) that makes you want them together, and maybe even sparks a bit of envy. When they're on screen it's often difficult not to smile, even under the bone-crushing weight of the films more abysmal moments. With any other cast this film would be nothing short of dreadful, but they make it work through their own force of will and charisma.

In short-- you can leave this film happy, and if the sick feeling of knowing you enjoyed a film from the Hollywood mastermold doesn't catch up to you, you might even remember it fondly. If pretty people with good personalities and solid chemistry isn't enough, and admittedly it's usually not, then avoid it without regret. However, if mind-numbing gut-level appeal is enough for a rainy afternoon go right on ahead.

VERDICT: C+

Comic Review Wednesdays - Detective Comics #855

2009-07-29T19:29:00.004-04:00

Detective Comics #855
Batwoman (24-Page feature):
Writer: Greg Rucka
Artist: J.H. Williams III

The Question (8-Page co-feature):
Writer: Greg Rucka

Artist: Cully Hamner

In Batwoman, Kate confronts the new Lewis Carol inspired leader of the thirteen covens of Gotham, Alice. Desperate to know why the covens are interested in her, Kate stumbles down the rabbit hole for answers. It isn't long until things begin to spin out of control. In the Question, Renee confronts Varga and continues her search for her client's kidnapped sister.

Even before Batwoman debuted she was making headlines for one big reason: She's gay. Writer Greg Rucka, the character's modern creator and the major source of a "gay presence" in DC comics (he's also responsible for Renee Montoya's coming out), said before he took Batwoman to Detective Comics that he would not emphasize her sexuality any more than any of her other characteristics. It's for this reason that the early pages of Batwoman disturbed me so much.

Whether written in by Rucka, or drawn in by Williams there is undeniable sexual presence in the fight between Kate and Alice. In the fight, Kate disarms Alice-- taking away her various knives and guns-- and the panels are overt close ups of Kate touching Alice's upper ribcage and thighs. In another panel Kate and Alice's faces are very close to one anothers, a rather typical interrogation-type panel, and Alice is licking her lips for no discernible reason.

Depending on the situation, it seems Rucka should either be ashamed or upset. It seems silly in ways to point out something that takes up so little of the actual comic, but the respect that characters like Renee Montoya or Batwoman receive is incredibly important. The demographics of super-hero comics shouldn't be placated to, and the artist/writer shouldn't indulge in whims at the expense of the character. The significance of the fact that one of DC's major titles (their namesake, in fact) features two gay characters is huge, and because it's the first time Marvel or DC has put a gay character in the limelight on an extended run, the care taken is paramount. It sets a tone for not only how the characters themselves are treated, but how any gay characters can be treated for an indeterminate amount of time.

Personal positions aside, the second issue of Batwoman's time in Detective Comics answers very few questions, and does little to help define her character beyond what's already known. Readers are given a handful of single-panel images that allude to the character's past, but largely things are still left unknown. Rucka has promised an origin within the next few months, but until then reading about Kate continues to be somewhat of a detached process, however, an astute reader familiar with Rucka might be able to begin to connect small pieces of her origin already. Reader beware (R.L. Stine reference intended), there's a bit of a WTF type ending to this month's issue.

J.H. Williams' art work is still stunning, and the story is unfolding at as quickly a pace as can be expected, and it's only getting more intriguing at time goes on. Question continues exactly where it left off, and like last month feels somewhat lackluster due to its length. While the co-features are welcome additions they certainly don't do much for character work. The Question continues to play out somewhat episodically like old serials or new-paper adventure comics.

RATING: 7 out of 10
I'd recommend picking up this month, and last's issue of Detective comics not only because I believe Rucka's run will be promising but because I believe it's important to support the characters in the title. Good sales will continue to keep gay characters in comics front and center stage, and it certainly doesn't hurt that the stories seem promising.

Comic Review Wednesdays - Captain Britain and MI:13 #15

2009-07-22T23:13:00.005-04:00

Captain Britain and MI:13 #15 (Final Issue!)
Written by Paul Cornell
Pencils by Leonard Kirk

MI:13 has come a long way since the Skrull Invasion; some friends have died, some have returned, relationships have blossomed, and Britain has been saved on more than one occasion, but now things have finally come down to the wire. Britain and Dracula's vampire army face off for the future of the English Island in the final chapter in Paul Cornell's outstanding series.

With only some foresight and a few months notice, Paul Cornell set out to write a satisfying end to the series he started more than 15 months ago, but in trying to tie-up all of his loose ends, it feels like Cornell lost some of the magic that made his series so outstanding. This final issue tries and more or less succeeds in bringing a close to virtually all of the plot-points that Cornell has written but none are given a satisfying amount of breathing room to appreciate them. The final issue of Captain Britain reads more like a Sparknotes summery of the conclusion of Vampire State than the actual end of the story.

I can only assume that Cornell was trying to fit his story into the time frame that Marvel gave him (I imagine they told him he had until the end of Vampire State to conclude the series, but if the end of the previous two stories are any indication, Cornell tends to have a "buffer" issue between stories). What I had hoped would be a fairly quick resolution to Vampire State turned out to be a somewhat lengthy conclusion, and unsurprisingly Cornell didn't have the time to put the metaphorical bow on the package to give the reader the sense of how far the story has come which I think is always the hallmark of an outstanding ending.

On one specific front, however, Cornell does manage to make room for the glimpse at the road traveled. In many ways this series has been more about Cornell's created character Faiza Hussain, starting her story in the streets of Skull invaded Britain as a super-hero worshiping groupie, plagued by insecurity, to love-struck hero in training, and finally a hero. The series has often focused more on Faiza, and her journey is one of the few things completely apparent in this final issue, and it's very rewarding.

Although its conclusion was generally lackluster, and not up to par with what Cornell has written in the past, the series as a whole has been a fascinating roller coaster of plot reversals and unexpected developments. Characters like Pete Wisdom, and Spitfire who were likely unknown to readers when the series began are now fully realized characters that can actually evoke pathos. Cornell even made the impossible-to-write vampire hunter Blade work in his series seamlessly. Captain Britain and MI13 has been a stunning series, and to great regret has been cut down well before its time.

RATING (Issue): 5 out of 10
RATING (Series): 8 out of 10
Please consider buying the volumes of Captain Britain and MI13 as they come out in trade. It's wonderfully entertaining and good sales could potentially mean a miniseries sometime in the near future!

I Take It Back, You Suck.

2009-07-16T20:05:00.011-04:00

Not too long ago while I was writing about the legal dispute surrounding J.D. California's rip-off novel of The Catcher in the Rye, 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye, I mentioned that I admired what Seth Grahame-Smith did in writing Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. However, slowly I've begun to find out more about the writer and the project, and with each new piece of information my admiration suffers a heavy blow. What I admired about Grahame-Smith's work (and to some extent still do admire) is that it seemed to me that he commenting on how sentimentalized Jane Austin has become. It's my great regret to admit I haven't ever read Austin, but I have some understanding of what her work is like. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Austin writes romances that are often barbed, targeting mannered society-- where in the end it is more of a social commentary than a romance.

At least this is how I envisioned Austin's work. Seth Grahame-Smith's work seems nothing short of genius in this regard because it builds onto the mockery of manners, and helps to dismantle the made-for-TV-type adaptation that has painted the wrong idea of Austin's work in the public mind. To me it seemed absolutely appropriate to "revise" Austin so that her work was better understood. As I've said, it seemed flat out admirable.

The first piece of information I came across that tarnished my original opinion was that Seth Grahame-Smith's next novel would feature Abraham Lincoln fighting off werewolves. It didn't sound like the kind of project a respectable author would take on, but quotes from Grahame-Smith eased my fears a bit. He said something to the effect that Abraham Lincoln was a tough, woodsman type man and that often gets forgotten when we imagine him as a statesman. I thought to myself, "Oh! I get it. He's working with similar intentions, trying to get people to revise their preconceived ideas through exaggeration." The project didn't sound quite as strong as Zombies, but It didn't cause me too much worry.

The next thing I stumbled upon was a quote from the editorial director of Quirk-- the company that published Zombies. Three books are being published by different companies by the end of the year-- Mr. Darcy, Vampyre, Darcy's Hunger, and Jane Bites Back. The first two reimagine Mr. Darcy as a vampire, and the last imagines Jane Austin herself as a vampire. My guess is that these blood-sucker publishers are trying to hop on board the Twilight express, and hoping to pick up the Austin fans along the way. In any case, In response to these "copy-cats" editorial director Jason Rekulak told Entertainment Weekly:

"I just thought it would be funny to desecrate a classic work of literature. For the longest time, Seth and I were the only two people who thought it was a really good idea."

My beliefs about respecting classic works aside, I feel like this quote paints the picture that it didn't matter what work of literature was revised, and that makes all of the difference in the world. Huckleberry Finn or Pip from Great Expectations dealing with Zombies likely would have offended me from the get-go. Deconstructionist literature is to reform people's opinions, not to just have fun with, especially if you're going to revise a classic work of literature like Pride and Prejudice. If you have no real reason to do it other than because you want to, you might as well be slapping the author in the face. Honestly, how is it any different than drawing a mustache and blacking out teeth on a portrait? It's likely everyone has authors or artists they'd like to "take the piss out of" but in the end, you have your opinion for that. You don't need to deface their work.

The final straw for me came with this weeks Entertainment Weekly, which details the release of a new novel published by Quirk due out in September entitled Sense and Sensibility and Seas Monsters. This novel is being authored by Ben H. Winters, rather than Grahame-Smith. Judging by the publishing date, I think it's fair to assume that the book was well underway before the success of Zombies, and because it's not penned by Grahame-Smith, I can only assume that Jason Rekulak at Quirk likes to deface classic literature. In fact Winters says of the novel:

"[Quirk] gave me the title [of the book], a copy of Sense and Sensibility, and told me to go to town."

I think a few things can be gleaned from the quote, the first of which is that Quirk doesn't care about literary merit if they're giving authors their titles [and thereby their subject]. The second thing that could be taken from this is that Winters may very well have never even read Sense and Sensibility before revising it. Thirdly, it's quite obvious they don't even really care how Austin is revised so long as there are some monsters running around.

Everyone is out there to make a buck, I'm not going to deny that, All I ask is that you have some artistic integrity. Grahame-Smith might well be in the clear, maybe Quirk latched to what he intended to do with Zombies and ran with it. In which case, Quirk's sin is tarnishing what Grahame-Smith accomplished, rather than Austin. Even as a commentary on the over-sentimentalised idea of Jane Austin, Zombies would have been something admirable but it seems we don't even get that. Be it Grahame-Smith, Jason Rekulak, or all of Quirk, someone is an idiot.

Comic Review Wednesdays - Mighty Avengers #27

2009-07-15T18:35:00.003-04:00

Mighty Avengers #27
Plot by Dan Slott
Script by Christos N. Gage
Pencils by Khoi Pham

Before Blackbolt took power there was another king of the inhumans. He was erased from history, but now he's returned. Quicksilver and U.S.Agent on the mission for the international super-hero trust (or whatever it's called) encounter the Unspoken, the former inhuman leader. Meanwhile the other Avengers are finally shown Pym's ultimate creation-- Salvation-2.

Scirpting duties have been passed off to Christos Gage with this issue-- presumably Slott is too bust with other projects and thus has pulled a Brian Michael Bendis. Often when the scripter isn't the plotter the quality of the title plummets, but fortunately Mighty Avengers manges to stay safely in the zone. If the reader isn't aware of the switch beforehand (as likely they're not going to be; Gage isn't listed on the cover, and credits aren't in the books until literally half-way) they're likely not going to notice a change in the storytelling. Slott's kind of sense of fun, and smart character moments are still there but they're to varying degrees less effective.

For instance only one of several jokes in the issue actually makes its mark. One particular stinker, following the arrival of the (apparently) formally named "China force" goes "They're called the People Defense Force now, idiot." Character moments are also much farther in between. Gage clearly doesn't have the grasp on the characters that Slott has. U.S.Agent seems to have been reduced for more a caricature, and Quicksilver now seems incongruous. Additionally, Hercules and Amadeus Cho-- surprisingly big draws to the series-- are not nearly as effective in this issue as they have been in the past. Still, many of these criticisms only come in retrospect when it comes to attention that this issue wasn't written by a bad-day Slott. They hardly break the title, but they're certainly there.

The issue begins with a rather lengthy section of exposition which details how the Unspoken came to be the Unspoken. Normally these sections are complete bores to read and are point-to examples of bad story telling, but Slott and Gage manage to make the section entertaining enough to keep one's attention. There is something attractive about seeing the infamous inhumans as teenagers that makes the section captivating. Seeing these often arrogant characters are young well-intentioned upstarts suits them, almost so that you might want to read more.

As is often the case with the new villain there is a certain lack of threat to them. Nothing he accomplishes in this particular issue is awe-worthy, and words can only go so far as it is. The arc promises to be a open invite to just about every hero in the marvel universe, and the reveal of Pym's salvation-2 seems to support that.

RATING: 7 out of 10
Though not quite as strong as a script written by Slott himself, Gage manages to give it some charm. This issue would be a solid jumping on point if you're interested in following the series.

Wonderfully Spun [A Book Review]

2009-07-12T20:24:00.004-04:00

Let The Great World Spin
A novel by Colum McCann
Published June 2009

In 1974 Philippe Petit walked across a steel cable hung a quarter of a mile in the air. It connected the two towers of the World Trade Center. Colum McCann's new novel begins with Petit's first step on the wire, and then dives downward into the drudge-filled streets of New York in the seventies. The novel follows a diverse cast of characters that are united by coincidence, will, history and fate. McCann's novel is not only a portrait of seventies New York and it's people, but of the world today.

The attacks of September 11th 2001 have been milked of their emotional worth by artists and politicians alike and even almost eight years later when it's discussed as the basis for a work of fiction or film there is a certain tension that builds in a spine. Issues of bad taste plagued those that came right out of the gate, and now any attempt at the subject seems tired. As McCann's subject is supposed to act as a parallel to the attacks, and it thus brings about a certain level of scrutiny.

McCann's novel starts very promising as it builds the mounting tension surrounding Petit's walk. However in the following two sections, one about two Irish brothers in deterorated Brooklyn, and another about an aristocratic woman on Park Avenue there begins to build a feeling of discordance. The stories are complete in their own right, but they fail to amount to a novel. The disconnect is too large, to difficult to move from one to another. This seemingly unbridgeable gap, the "fault" is just part of the genius of McCann's novel.

As McCann guides the reader through seventies New York, he acquaints them with narrator after unexpected narrator. Footnote characters in one section inevitably end up carrying the book twenty or forty pages themselves. As the narrator's shift, the intricate web of lives McCann has woven becomes increasingly apparent until the great divide between these opening sections is little wider than the gap between cracks in the sidewalk. What seems at first to be a short-story-novel becomes interconnected short stories, and finally a novel as all the character's stories finally meld into one.

When McCann says that his characters are united by Petit's walk, he doesn't lie but he dangerously undersells his novel. In fact, only one of the narrators witnesses the walk for themselves, and it doesn't happen in the book. McCann speaks to the unity in New York post-9/11 not only by uniting the city in a single event but uniting their very lives. It's a book about humanity and history, unity and survival. It is the kind of book that can make want to believe in the world again.

Almost as impressive is what McCann achieves in the book's brilliant execution. Each narrator is powerful, and unique and none more important than another. As the lives collide, the book is stronger for already having been in a character's mind. It boarders on painful to watch the present narrator attack or watch in dramatic irony a former one. Already being aware of their thoughts and feelings, the reader can project exactly how substantially words and events weigh on them. McCann brings the readers as close as possible to a united consciousness with all the characters, and it only helps to further his goals.

This near-perfect novel is topped off with some absolutely stunning prose with pin-point specific word choice. The book is quotable on dozens of occasions, and specific lines will leave a reader reeling at their weight, craftsmanship, and exactitude.

McCann's novel is brilliant. It accomplishes so much, and it's so very wonderful. It's a shame that it took as long as it did to come out, because amidst the propaganda and zeitgeist riders it would have risen above and been so much more. In the end, it's still an outstanding achievement, and a wonderfully written book.

VERDICT: A

It's Not Bonnie & Clyde... [A Movie Review]

2009-07-09T20:50:00.008-04:00

Public Enemies
Opened July 1st 2009
Directed by Michael Mann
Written by Ronan Bennett, Michael Mann, and Ann Biderman

In Michael Mann's newest movie John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) traverses the American mid-west doing what criminals do best: robbing banks and evading the police. In an effort to bring the well-known crook to justice, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) is appointed as head of the Chicago FBI office by a young J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup). In the same press announcement, Dillinger is named Public Enemy #1. Amdist the choas Dillinger enters into a romantic relationship with a coat-check girl named Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard).

Seemingly among Mann's highest priorities in this biopic was an interest in capturing the frantic chaos that undoubtedly is the experience of being in a shootout. Between quick cuts, explosive lights, and unsteady hand-held cineomatography the auidenice forceably thrown into the crossfire. Like a unfortunate predestrine at the wrong place at the wrong time, all one can do is hit the ground and quietly pray for a quick resolution. Conceptually Mann's approach seems appropriate but he seems to forget that horrendous real-life experiences can only translate to bad cinematic ones. It's not quite bright lights and noise, but it's not much better. The frequency of shootouts doesn't help the film very much either. Curiously in some of these action scenes the rich quality of celluiod seems absent, as though they were shot on an expensive but not quite good enough video camera. The change of quality is apparent, and like a bout of hiccups is temporary but frustrating.

For whatever reason, this choatic style of filmmaking (perhaps it's quintessential Mann, I don't have the experience to comment) is consistent, although less severe throughout the entire film. Quick pans, and handheld shots often make it difficult to focus on the subject. The cinematography is overall erratic and distracting.

The biggest challenge any biopic faces is shinning a light on the individual, or individuals that the film is about. Like a biography, or biographical work of fiction it should give the viewer a fresh and clear idea of that person. Leaving the the theater after seeing Public Enemies, the auidience is really given very little detail on who John Dillinger and Melvin Purvis actually were. There is certainly a narrative with characters, but the historical figures seem somehow lost in it. In the film Dillinger behaves very much like you'd expect someone of his ilk to behave. He's brazen, and attention hungry-- hardly illuminating characteristics.

The unexplored seems evident in Dillinger's relationship with Billie Frechette. While the film wants the auidence to find their relationship substantial, perhaps touching, there is virtually nothing in the film that builds on the shallow whims that unite them in the beginning. Rather than simply presenting Dillinger's strange sense of loyalty, it would be better to understand where it comes from, and how it survives in a career like his. Melvin Purvis gets worse representation. The text that follows the film, detailing the lives of those involved after the film's end says more about his inner conflicts than the entire film. A vague illusion in one scene of the film, and Bale's attempts at showing the conflicts without script support are really all that's in the film to suggest what what happens to Melvin Purvis after the film ends. This omission is enough to make one wonder further just what might be missing from Dillinger's own story.

The film is capable enough. It's unsurprising, unenlightening, and not particularly moving but it's capable. Somehow it manages to keep attention for the entirity of its one-hundred and forty minute run time, although by the end you'll wonder what it was you spent all of that time watching. If you're compelled to go to the movies, you could certainly do worse.

VERDICT: C

Comic Review Wednesdays - Ms. Marvel #41

2009-07-08T23:26:00.004-04:00

Ms. Marvel #41
Written by Brian Reed
Art by Sergio Arino

The M.O.D.O.K babies, better described as the second-generation storytellers-- A.I.M created reality shapers-- have been stolen under Norman Osborn and the new Ms. Marvel's noses by Deadpool. Meanwhile, the New Avengers struggle to piece together the information they have; finally revealing the identity of the spectral figure which have been plaguing Karla Sofen's life. Things are nothing short of chaos as Reed brings together the pieces leading up to War of the Marvels.

If one thing can be gathered from the summery above it's that things aren't just chaotic for Reed's characters, but for readers as well. Between the New Avengers, Deadpool, A.I.M, Norman Osborn, M.O.D.O.K babies and the now ancient storyteller plot lines it's difficult for even the most devoted fan of Reed's series to care about the current events. The old protagonist of Reed's series is presumed dead, and his new one has so little time on panel --and is so incredibly dislikable-- that there are really very little to root for in this convoluted plot that so far hasn't managed to make an once of logical sense.

If that wasn't enough, it's likely that most readers discovered the identity of these spectral figures long ago, possibly as far back as their first appearance. It isn't until a third of the way through the issue that Reed finally comes to restate the material he made perfectly clear at the end the previous issue. It is something forgivable enough if the pages did something for the story, or if Reed couldn't have used them more efficiently but as always is the case they don't and he could have. For instance, this issue contains two fight scenes that make up most of the additional two-thirds. Both are lackluster, and devoid of tension. If for nothing better Reed could have at least added more to these scenes by reducing his opening by two to four pages.

Even all the way down to the colorist there are issues with this particular issue. A discolored specter early on gives one the notion that there are five entities instead of four.

Reed's title has suffered significantly since he killed off Carol Danvers a few issues ago. The plot has been predictable, not engaging, and completely devoid of even a half-compelling protagonist. The near future of the series is only moderately more bright as it promises to bring back some focus to this series that has never quite topped the first year of it's publication.

RATING: 3 out of 10
Just don't read this title. I can't even suggest an appropriate jumping on point because of how long Reed had been pulling on old plot lines, and given its shaky sales I can't say it'll be around much longer once this story wraps up. Ah, it has fallen so far since that first wonderful story arc!

The Academy Doubles Up

2009-07-06T15:03:00.005-04:00

The Academy Awards have long been the highest honor for films and filmmakers, dating back all way to 1929. They in no way determine history (Citizen Kane was beat by How Green Was My Valley) but they do act as a contemporary looking glass, allowing us to see what we deemed as culturally significant both now and much later on. On June 24th (I apologize for being so late to comment on this), it was announced that this next year's academy awards-- Oscars-- will have a daunting ten nominees for best picture instead of the more traditional five. The possible motives behind such a move have been questioned, and the decision has been both praised and criticized.

In recent years, and arguably for a very long time, the Academy has been significantly detached from the public consciousness. The movies, and often even the actors that they choose to honor aren't always known to the public. The best picture nominees earlier this year were Slumdog Millionaire, Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, The Reader and Milk. Slumdog Millionaire managed win public favor by pulling on audience heart strings and commenting on serious subjects. Benjamin Button's star cast and director gave it more notoriety than many of its competitors, but the connection between the three other films and public at large was virtually non-existent. Such it has come to be that ten films will be nominated so that well-crafted, big budget, public friendly films have a chance to slide into the running.

The problems goes deeper than those associated with the change in the number of nominees however. Having ten nominees does tarnish the honor of being nominated. It's plain fact that if something is easier to achieve it means less. It's not to say that bad films will get into the ten, but the ninth or tenth nominee is not going to be of the caliber that the others are. Even with five nominees, often you can often eliminate two or three from the running for best picture in making your predictions. In 2006 anyone paying attention knew that the race for best picture was between Crash and Brokeback Mountain. A year in which all five nominees could be potential winners would threaten 1939's title as "the greatest year in film." To suggest that ten films of Academy merrit could come out in a single year is ridiculous and to add nominations just humor the public or public-friendly films borders on insulting. You don't give the unathletic kid a chance at a free throw if he's just going to embarrass himself-- you acknowledge his good qualities elsewhere instead of highlighting his weak points.

To this some might argue "But the nomination is their award"-- to this you can only point to films like The Reader or Benjamin Button that were already in that same situation with only five films. It's their success that is diminished more than anyone else's.

However, as mentioned, the problem is more challenging than the number of nominees. The problem is that the best pictures of the year are seldom nominated for best picture. Adding more slots to placate to the public isn't going to help. This change points to a problem with the academy as a whole. Mainstream films are not considered worthy of nomination in the eyes of the Academy voters, and therefore will never be able to win even with nomination. Of this years best picture nominees, I only saw one-- Slumdog Millionaire. With all honesty and sincerity, setting my fanboy notions aside, I can say that I enjoyed The Dark Knight a hundred times more. Going on RottenTomatoes scores alone, The Dark Knight has a score on par with Milk, and Slumdog Millionare, all three of which barely score better than Frost/Nixon. The remaining two films stand at 22% and 32% lower than their competiters. Hardly the epitome of high quality.

If the Academy wants the public to watch the Academy Awards, if they want the precious ratings they seem to be searching for, they shouldn't be drawing in with empty promises, but making public-approved contenders legitimate. If Star Trek is this year's Dark Knight as I've seen suggested then it should be in the running best picture with four other contenders instead of nine. The "Best movies" and ones "favorite movies" aren't always two different things, and can't be. Continued avoidance of big budget blockbusters in a FIVE FILM RANKING is pretentious snobbery, and so is adding nominees to placate to the public. Films that deserve the title of best picture, and also have a large boxoffice gross are rare but not so rare that one or even two shouldn't be nominated each year.

The Academy's move may have precedence, and it may (though doubtfully) have best interests at heart but it feels disingenuous. If the Academy wants big-budget films, animated films and documentaries to slip into the running they need to acknowledge that those films are better on the whole than some of the traditional fare. No one likes to be patted on the back, or in this case carried on someones shoulders, when they know their work isn't worthy of it.

Comic Review Wednesdays - Justice League: Cry for Justice #1

2009-07-01T19:53:00.004-04:00

Justice League: Cry for Justice #1 (of 7)
Written by James Robinson
Art by Mauro Cascioli

Hal Jordan, The Green Lantern, is fed up. Martian Manhunter and Batman have died fighting, and many of those responsible are still roaming the streets. What's the point of the Justice League if criminals are never put to justice? No longer can heros be reactive, they must be proactive. After passionately appealing to the league, Hal leaves the league with Green Arrow to do what the other league members refuse to do: deliver justice.

Robinson's base concept for Justice League: Cry of Justice, a comic now more than a year in the making, is nothing original. Proactive justice has been the starting point for at least one incarnation of The Outsiders. It is also one of the many different directions that Brian Reed's Ms. Marvel has taken, around its second year, in the form of Operation Lightning Storm. Doubtless there are additional instances of bombastic super-heros taking a more authoritative approach to crime fighting. While the concept isn't quite stale yet, it certainly doesn't serve the series well. What inevitably happens in these types of stories is that the supposedly proactive team becomes reactive within two, or sometimes even in the first story. It's likely due to the difficulty of creating plots around heros who arbitrarily circle the globe looking for villains. Robinson's title may or may not fall into this trap, and fortunately it's a mini-series, so the likelihood is at least lessened. The trouble is it's still not very creative jumping off point.

Concept however, is secondary to execution. Unfortunately Robinson doesn't even have that to lean on. The dialog is never better than mediocre, is frequently horrid, and occasionally melodramatic bordering on hoaky. With lines like, "Remember back in the day... when I lost my millions and became liberal", and "Welcome to pain" readers should be able to tare this comic up in frustration without the slightest once of guilt over the 3.99 they spent for it. Even more disturbing is that early in the comic, Superman issue the line "We start again. We begin again. And we do the right thing and we stay united for all we hold true. I mean--, --isn't that what we do?" Ignoring the overlooked rhyme in the dialog, this is a line said by Superman in which he not only stammers but questions his position on justice and the league! A worse error in character is difficult to imagine without crossing into the absurd.

If that weren't enough, Robinson one-ups himself. The issue itself is more or less a string of scenes that touch base with several major characters in the story. Setting up personal motivations, the issue touches on the emotionally charged events -- that are all unsettlingly similar-- that will unite these characters. Virtually at the end of each scene, a character literally cries aloud for justice. It's the kind of melodramatic comic puke that can make a person swear off comics all together.

The artwork, meticulously hand-done by relative new-comer Maurd Cascioli, however, is absolutely stunning. His work is of the kind not often seen in comics where fine arts illustration and sequential art are happily married. It is largely because of Cascioli's work that this title has been so long in the making, and visually it's worth the wait. It wouldn't be at all surprising if he were to quickly become one of Marvel or DC's hot cover artists.

RATING: 4 out of 10
The rating is only because of the stunning quality of the artwork, and the unexpected additional material in the back of the book (DC once again proves it cares about its readers more than Marvel by giving them more material for their extra buck). If you want to read Cry of Justice, this is the first issue and on shelves now-- it will supposedly have an effect on Robinson's upcoming run on the ongoing Justice League title and may be worth it if you're on board for that. I'm just reading it for Batwoman.

Almost Grown Up [A Movie Review]

2009-06-26T17:59:00.005-04:00

Opened May 29th 2009

Directed by Pete Docter & Bob Peterson

Written by Pete Doctor & Bob Peterson, additional story by Thomas McCarthy.

Up is the story of Carl Fredricksen (voiced by Ed Asner) as he tries to fulfill a lifelong promise to his late wife. Along the way, Carl is forced to associate with a parade of tag-alongs, among them a talkative, energetic boy scout named Russell (Jordan Nagai), a dim companion named Dug (Bob Peterson), and a wild bird dubbed Kevin. Carl struggles to make good on his word while the others do what can't honestly be called help until unforeseen complications throw a wrench in the works.

The film, though admittedly from a company that has shown tremendous warmth in the past, is surprisingly tender in its subject matter. Older viewers can expect a film that will be emotionally engaging, perhaps much more for themselves than for their children who's typical sort-range empathy might not grasp the scope of Carl's situation. The film's strength lies in this and combined with the film's sincere and well defined characters it's enough to keep audiences firmly engaged, and thankfully so. In creating something so earnest Pixar separated themselves significantly from what brought them so much success: Humor.

Up is never choked by false or over-done sentiment, and it's often amusing but the amount of actual laugh-worthy jokes could be counted on one's hands. This isn't in itself a problem if that's not the overall goal, but Up is labeled a comedy. Its occasionally stale jokes, or silly concepts have the ability to amuse very young audiences, likely the under 10 (perhaps even younger) crowd, but few outside the demographic. This is partially the material's fault, and partially that the tone of the film doesn't allow for the more absurd ideas to work. Adults simply just shouldn't walk into the film expecting to yuck it up. This movie isn't Toy Story with its over-young-heads jokes, or The Incredibles with its welcome eccentricities. Up, ironically enough, is more grounded in realism than Pixar's other work and for this reason much of the stuff thats been around the merry-go-round isn't working for it. Regardless, the movie still has a handful of great comedic moments, but many (as often is the case) have been spoiled by the trailers.

What can be said for the humor case also be said for the film's logical troubles. The film requires a great deal of suspension of disbelief for older audiences- much more than should be, even for animation. Carl's mode of transportation might raise some eyebrows, but it's otherwise something that doesn't even need to be forgiven. Most of these problems stem from the film's antagonist and his situation. Again, it also becomes an issue of tone and appropriateness. For young audiences, and complacent old ones however, this is a complete non-issue.

Up is the sort of film that screenwriting professors can scream about, for good or for bad. Like most Pixar films, it follows the standard three-act structure to the letter. What can be dubbed the "Angry Pixar Character Scene" can be found in this film, much as it can in the films that came before it (Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, etc) to the point that an astute viewer can now feel the shift in the wind earlier than they should. On the good side of things however, the plot points fold into each other rather nicely. More importantly, the characters are sturdy and within the first fifteen minutes the film has managed to make the audience care about their well-being. Don't be surprised if more than once you end up reassuring yourself that "everything will be okay, this is a Pixar film."

Up is a film that demonstrates what a more adult Pixar is capable of, though it has tonal issues itself. It's warm without being sentimental, and though it falls into the trap of several Pixar conventions, the intricacy of the plot points is impressive. Visually attractive and rewarding, Up manages to meet high expectations and provide proof of what pixar could be with some lofty ambition.

VERDICT: B+

PS. This review is messy, and scattered. Sorry. It may also be the first of weekly movie reviews for the length of the summer.

Comic Review Wednesdays - Detective Comics #854

2009-06-24T19:23:00.006-04:00

Detective Comics #854

Batwoman (24-page feature):

Writer: Greg Rucka

Artist: J.H. Williams III

The Question (8-Page co-feature):

Writer: Greg Rucka

Artist: Cully Hamner

In Detective Comic's feature, Batwoman, A new leader is about to assume power in the shady crime religion that has caused Kate problems in the past (52). With Batman's blessing Kate takes up the investigation, desperate to cut off the organization's head before it has the chance to strike again. At the same time, she struggles with her own personal history and relationship problems. In The Question, Renee gets contacted by a man looking to find his missing teenage sister.

One of the biggest challenges for a writer can be taking a character who has been in continuity for a long time, and placing them in a new series. Pre-series fans don't want back story repeated, and new fans don't want to be in the dark, and so the balance can be hard to strike. Fortunately Rucka has managed to strike a solid median point. Coming into Batwoman/Question was a nervous venture; Batwoman I knew had background dating back to 52, none of which I was aware of, and all I knew from Rucka's now long period writing Renee was the first nine issues of Gotham Central (believe me, Jokers and Madmen is already on my amazon wishlist!), and that at some point in 52 she assumed the identity of The Question. In short, despite that I've been clamoring for this title for some time, I didn't know much more than a perfect layman. However, Rucka eases the reader into Kate's current love life effortlessly, and leaves the reader with all they need to know in that arena. The plot line is fresh, and doesn't require specific expository detail, which leaves Rucka with a fair amount of space to give new readers just a hint of background, enough so that they're not totally lost and not too much as to bore. As for The Question, the premise comes off as very straight forward, and the plot is again, free of pre-existing complication.

The first adversary that Rucka has lined up for Batwoman is something of an eye-brow raiser. A new character, she bares a certain thematic similarity to a somewhat notable Batman villain, and while an encounter with said Batman villain might seem expected, it also almost seems like it would be a missed opportunity not to pursue that particular avenue. Rucka seems to be pursuing his own subjects so far (the characters and plots are almost all entirely his, including the backstory), but it's not at all out of the realm of possibility that a chance encounter is in the future. Frankly, it wouldn't hurt either. One of the most notable aspects of the Batman franchise is the deranged lot that make up his rouges gallery. For the little panel time this new villain has, she is at least visually interesting, and potentially the kind of villain you keep around for the future-- hopefully she's just as crazy as the Bat-villains to come before her.

One of the other major challenges facings a writer coming to a new series is that he quickly needs to make his reader care about a character they might have never come across before, and thankfully Rucka knows the routine. He allows his characters as much personal page space that can be allowed in a comic, while still setting up a plot line to keep people coming back. While it's difficult to judge correct characterization and smart plotting with so little so go on, it seems that Batwoman is going to excel, and if Gotham Central is any indication of Rucka's ability to write meaningful characters, I expect Kate will a personal favorite soon enough.

J.H. Williams is an outstanding artist, and the book's colorist, Dave Stuart, seems to be doing wonders for the book as well. There are a number of pages, particularly the two-page spreads, that are simply breathtaking. The panel layout, while at first jarring, is a welcome deviation from the normal that isn't ever difficult to follow. Curiously, one of the scenes in the comic is much less striking than all the others, notably on the often artist hated "talking head" scenes. The proportions seem the slightest bit off in places, and Kate never quite looks right. It's a small blip in an otherwise visually stunning comic.

A note on co-features: It may be remembered that a short while ago, I was voicing my support for the DC co-feature, as it prevented characters from falling into obscurity, justified DC raising their prices to match Marvel's, and provided a bit more precious work in the comic industry. Seeing the co-feature in action is an odd thing. Because it's only a short eight pages, the story has to move quickly. This means, almost certainly, that readers are unlikely to see very many touching character scenes, but for what things are it seems a small price to pay. The co-features read like well-written Sunday comics of more appropriate length. They give more than a taste, but less than a meal-- the result is something that will take getting used to.

As for the Question, the story is only just taking off the ground, but as of now has more of a real-world kind of super-heroics to it. So far the story only promises a gang leader for a villain, and it's going to prove challenging for Rucka to keep audience interest up. There are dozens of generic crime lord/bosses that have graced comic pages, each of them around for usually one story in which they're violent temperamental pushovers. Rucka is going to have to work for readers to care, but at least it gives a slight throw back to the fact that Renee was only a cop not too long ago, and her villains maybe shouldn't be too grandiose.

RATING: 7 out of 10

The series seems to be on the right track, and should be an entertaining read. As promised, Rucka doesn't overblow his character's sexuality, and seems to be working hard to make them mean something to readers. Not a stunning first round, but more than adequate. I suggest you jump on this title now if you're going to read it.

Does this format work for books with co-features? Do you think there is a better approach to reviewing them I could take up?

Getting A Hold on Holden Caulfield

2009-06-21T18:56:00.006-04:00

J.D. Salinger's modern classic The Catcher In The Rye has been in the news quite a bit with the recent legal developments surrounding writer J.D. California's take off novel 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye. This sort of attention inevitably generates new commentary and criticism on the original work, and the New York Times published an article yesterday that evaluated Holden's longevity, his place as a symbol of the confused youth, and how generation Y responds to a teenager now nearly sixty years old. This naturally forced me to examine my own relationship with Holden, and what my own experience, and responses of others have been.

When I first read Catcher in the Rye, I was a senior in high school and had recently turned seventeen. I hung out with a heavy-rock-and-wannabe-punk-but-actually-emo type of social circle. Like any high school experience it was an exploding bladder of high-octane drama. I was determined to leave my small town, and had dreams of becoming a film maker (writer/director, I naively believed I would be able to avoid doing grunt work) of merit, but certainly not a "main stream whore." I only listened to bands that weren't signed to major labels, had a burning hatred for the main stream consciousness and those who manipulated the artistic process for high profit, and aspired to achieving something artistically pure. In retrospect I have no doubt that a lot of these beliefs I adopted in an effort to differentiate myself, that I was lost, tormented by emotions and having difficulty accepting myself for who I was. In short I was an angsty teen.

With that picture in mind, I don't suppose it's difficult to accept that Catcher in the Rye would appeal to me. Like Holden I was lost, a hypocrite (which I believe I knew deep down), wholly unsure of myself but expressing my opinions vehemently, and in desperate need of help. However, in light of the Times article, I think perhaps that my sensibilities were much more like those of its young rebellious readers of the sixties, though hobbled and made crooked by the time in which I was raised. Holden may have appeared broken and lost to me in high school, but my state of being was so similar to his at the time that finding him was like finding a like minded individual at a political party meeting to which you're not a member.

The response of my classmates was much like that in the article, citing him as emo or whiny. For many discussion of the character didn't go any farther than "Who cares? He's gay!"--referring to Holden's less than concrete sexuality. The matter wasn't to be discussed as another aspect of Holden's uncertainty but rather these were conservative children from conservative homes. Those that could see past that I believe largely fell into two separate camps, but with the same root source, also discussed in the article;

In general, they do not have much sympathy for alienated antiheroes; they are more focused on distinguishing themselves in society as it is presently constituted than in trying to change it.

I believe that this quote speaks directly to the major flaws of generation Y: an obsessive interest in money, fame and overall self-centered concerns. I don't hold myself above it, and I see it quite frequently all around me. Bleeding heart emo music has risen to prominence, I suspect, for those same reasons. It is in this way that the modern response to Caulfield forks. There are those who I believe layer him in 'emo' clothing and relate to him in that way and those that reject him because of the culture's over-saturation of self-concern, or their own inflated self-concern. Ironically, I think the misunderstood youth of Holden Caulfield is now most misunderstood by those of his very age.

I read Catcher in the Rye a second time this past year, nearly three years after my initial read through. It was with dismay that I read a novel, that seemed to be vastly removed from my own life, and with a protagonist who won only my pity and nostalgic sympathies. At the end of the book, I was thrown by Holden's minutely changed attitude. Hadn't he grown up, matured? At the end of the novel, Holden is still railing and with my own feelings toward "phonies" and counter-culture minimized (though ever-present, evidenced here) I no longer knew quite what to make of him. Holden's journey seemed much smaller to me, almost exclusively focused on fear of failure. Blinded by my expectations, I don't think I understood that is Holden's entire journey. I believe I forgot why the novel would have appealed to me in the first place, when my aspirations were rocket high and my artistic principles lofty. In truth I feel as though I need to revisit Salinger's classic one more time. Even as I write this I'm unsure of the truth of it, my recollection of the novel only luke-warm.

In the end, I don't entirely understand why our generation would reject Caulfeild. The motivations may not be quite as pure and selfless as those rebellious first and second generation readers but the aspirations are still high, the fear of failure still looming over everyone. Is it because he's so imperfect? Is it because his social criticisms and opinions, hypocritical though they may be, are no longer relevant? I don't know. If J.D. California's novel does nothing else, the response to it has at the least forced me to re-examine Salinger's classic and reinvigorate my love for the novel. Holden Caulfeild is an icon of American literature, a character both unique and fully realized. It's not lack of timelessness that has caused the divide between Holden and the young reader, but a failing of the modern world that Holden continues on misunderstood.

Comic Book Wednesdays - Mighty Avengers #26

2009-06-17T21:22:00.004-04:00

Mighty Avengers #26

Written by Dan Slott

Pencils by Steven Segovia and Noah Salonga

The Mighty Avengers are going toe to toe with the fantastic four in a grudge match that began when famed scientist Reed Richards asserted to Hank Pym's face that he knew more about the pym particles than Pym himself did. Reed and Hank's battle of egos is just on the surface of it; if Hank doesn't get the late Bill Forrester's Dimensional Wave Inducer back from Reed, his lab and even some of the Avengers may be trapped in the Pym pocket forever! All of that is to say nothing of Hank Pym's continued love affair with A.I. Jocasta, whose brain patterns are the same as those as Hank's wife!

When I first returned to Mighty Avengers, which also happened to be my first comic review, I said that Slott's Avengers could well become an outstanding character-centered comic. Looking at it now, I can proudly stand by that prediction. Often what happens with super-hero comics is that they become bogged down by the melodramatic and ultra violent. The nineties may be over, by the dark and violent tone has never been more universal. The world is always ending in comic books, so why does every disaster need to seem (ha!) like it's the end of the world? Slott has continued to manage to write his characters light, without ever crossing too drastically into the realm of humor for humor. While Simone's Secret Six has many of the same virtues, its humor is black comedy and it isn't close to the tone that Slott manages to create. The world being what it is, it's refreshing to read a comic that is so purely a super-hero romp and doesn't take itself to seriously.

This particular issue is very strong, but not without flaws. Most notably that U.S. Agent and Quicksilver-- sent on a international mission last issue-- were completely absent this month. Understandably, Slott probably wants to wrap up the clash between the fantastic four and the Avengers, but surely he could have slipped a page or two for the other one-third of the Mighty Avengers. In addition to that, Reed Richards plays a fantastic villain in these past few issues-- so much so that I wonder if the other members of the Fantastic Four should double check and make sure they're no remnants left from the skrull invasion. Slott did the same thing with Tony Stark. I can only imagine that this is some forceful attempt for anti-Pym readers to sympathize with a long disliked and/or neglected character. I can't say that it isn't working, but for those who are already fans of the character-- myself included-- the portrayals of Reed and Tony seem to be coming from a writer who so completely hates the characters.

In addition to all of this, Cassie Lang or Stature, a character I was only vaguely familiar with, continues to be an annoying bothersome presence in the title. From the beginning she has been the person at the party who always shatters the positive with a huge fart, soap boxing about her particular feelings and allegiances. Slott seems to know the character's nature-- she's cut down rather wonderfully by Jocasta in the issue-- but it doesn't seem that he knows how grating she is to the reader. Perhaps those who have read her prior to Mighty Avengers can sympathize more.

Finally, the issue leaves off with a whopper of a cliff hanger that is so mysterious is almost seems unfair that it should be withheld from the reader for another month. It is positive in its way, certainly bringing readers back for the following issue, but overwhelmingly frustrating at the same time as not even a clue is given to the reader to think on.

RATING: 8 out of 10

Slott's Mighty Avengers is a great throw back to the Avengers comics of the seventies, and it gives fans of the true Avengers, rather than those of Bendis, exactly what they're looking for. Hop on as soon as possible as you want in, because it seems that Slott's Avengers run is going to have sprawling continuity that will confound readers trying to get on board too late on.

"In Sweden we don't sue people,"

2009-06-17T14:16:00.008-04:00

In the first half of the twentieth century, artists and writers were testing the boundaries, desperate to find out how far they could go with their work. It's not suprising that somewhere along the way the inexcusable excuse "It's all been done before" came about-- and even less surprising that unauthorized sequels and revisionist fiction came about. To mixed results and with often questionable motive, classic stories have been touched by the unwashed hands of writers' seeking success. Unfortunately, not every work of this type has the merit, or respectability of work by Tom Stoppard or Gregory Maguire. The hateful rant begins here.

It appears that a Swedish author-- with the rather pretentious pen-name of J.D. California, pictured above-- has a first "serious" novel coming out in the U.S. soon entitled 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye. The book has already been released in the U.K. It focuses on two main characters; J.D. Salinger and a shamelessly undisguised Holden Caufield renamed Mr. C. In the book, Salinger-- actually intended to be the author-- is trying to kill his character before his own soon and inevitable death. In addition, the book begins with Mr. C leaving a retirement home (note the 60 years later in the title) and experiencing a series of events similar to those in Salinger's famous work.

Notable about Salinger, in addition to his literary accomplishments and reclusive nature, is that he has always kept a tight reign on his work. He has saw to it that none of his work has ever been adapted for stage or screen, despite that he has had whopping offers come in from everyone as high up as Steven Spielberg. In addition, Salinger has always keep a tight watch on his private life. Salinger tried to block publication of a biography featuring his letters, and expressed dissatisfaction about the publication of memoirs by both his ex-wife and daughter. In short-- Salinger comes out of his shell only when he or his work is threatened, and sues accordingly.

Apparently this well known fact escaped Mr. California (I refuse to call him by his real name. If he wants to look like a jackass, let him) because when asked for comment remarked that he was very surprised, issuing the rather imbecilic comic statement "In Sweden we don't sue people," California's surprise amounts to one of two things-- either he never researched Mr. Salinger for his book (in which, I repeat, he is a character) or he knew well what was going to happen and this entire court case is a stunt to sell copies-- which I frankly think is immediately evident upon hearing the synopsis for the novel. It would be difficult to conjure up a safer bet for a lawsuit, and publicity.

I have read all of Salinger's work in available print -- save those only available in the New Yorker's pricey digital fiction collection, and Slight Rebellion of Madison, included in an anthology entitled Wonderful Town: New York Stories from the New Yorker -- and he is one of my favorite writers. Naturally I take offence to this development on a number of levels. First of all, Salinger is a frail ninety year old at this point, with a number of heath problems. His passing in not so far off that publication of such a work couldn't wait, and excitement and emotion surrounding the court cast is only going to expedite matters. As a fan of his work with the small hope that Salinger's unpublished fiction will see the light of day at the time of his passing, I'm in no rush to see him pass on should it mean the incompletion of a novel or story. Considering that Salinger's work focuses so on childhood, is there anyone with a respect for it that isn't interested in his insights into old age?

If that concern and hope weren't enough to hate this book from the onset there is also the simple fact that it reeks of a money grubbing scheme, desperate to take hold of Salinger's coat tales. J.D. California's name didn't given you enough indication of his character, this fiasco certainly does. The man undoubtably has no earnest respect for the book or the author whose back he's using to reach the first rungs on the latter of success. If he did, he wouldn't have written the work in Salinger's lifetime-- he certainly has time himself, being a writerly-young 33-- and he it wouldn't be such a slap in the face on top of things.

I thoroughly believe that Mr. J.D. California should be ashamed of himself, and his book being barred from publication isn't punishment enough. When one calls himself or herself an author by profession, I believe you are bound to respect the art form defining work that came before you. It doesn't have to be liked, but it must be appreciated. Those that have gumption to take such notable work for the basis as their own should only do so with the purist of artist interests in mind. Commercialism in fine in its own right, but not at the expense of slapping the great authors and writers in the face. On that note, kudos to Seth Gram-Smith for his success with Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Maybe I'll read it when I've finally gotten around to the unrevised version.

Do you have any feelings about this court case? Do you think California is just doing this for publicity, or do you think he has a legitiment creative work?

Superhero Movie Projection and Wishlist

2009-06-10T08:34:00.014-04:00

It's impossible to deny that superhero movies have hit the Hollywood mainstream in a big way. It started in the summer of 2000 with the release of Bryan Singer's first X-men movie, and has continued on to such heights as Iron Man, and The Dark Knight, and lows as lowly as the likes of Elektra and Punisher movies. They show no sign of stopping either-- Marvel has at least eleven comic book films planned for release; evidenced most significantly by their contract with Samuel L. Jackson for nine movie appearances to unite their properties in Marvel's blockbuster magnum opus, The Avengers.

With all the projects Marvel and DC alike seem to be grabbing for some of their more obscure properties. Iron Man, despite being a Marvel icon on the comic page (and my favorite comic character growing up), was forcefully thrust on the pop culture stage with the release of his 2008. Unknown comic properties are on the table, and if the trend continues, will only become more obscure. With all this in mind (and in a bit of filler for Comic Review Wednesday), I've written up a list of the comic movies, both real and wished for, that I'm excited to see on the big screen.

-The Real-

Batman 3 (Batman Begins/The Dark Knight Sequel)

While this project might not officially be out yet, that doesn't mean the rumor mill hasn't been churning in full force. A few months ago, it seemed like good news for this movie when Christopher Nolan, the first two film's director, signed on to do another movie at Warner Brothers-- presumably part of a package deal to get Nolan to direct the third film. It seems ludicrous to outline why I'd be excited for this movie, and the only real justification I need is to point to the first two films. The Batman movies under Nolan are absolutely unchallenged in quality when it comes to comic adaptations-- and I'd say that isn't because Batman especially lends himself to screen adaption but because Nolan is one of the few directors to take a comic project that was not only talented, but saw the importance of both removing and not removing it from it's comic source. In other words, he took it seriously. A lot of the casting rumors have mentioned Johnny Depp as the Riddler-- I firstly think it would be a mistake to pursue Riddler, and secondly cringe at the thought of Johnny Depp in anything (though trailers for Public Enemies caught my attention). I personally feel Depp has worn out his welcome and would do well to take a five year hiatus. I feel I should make a separate post for casting speculation on Batman 3.

Jonah Hex

Before I go on, I should say that some pictures of the Jonah Hex movie set have been released, but knowing they'll probably have CGI added in post-production I chose to go with this. Now, I'm no big fan of Jonah Hex. In fact, I know very little about him-- although I do think he looks awesome and I'm a huge fan of historical fiction, especially that of the Civil War-- but I'm looking foreword to this movie a whole lot. It has the possibility of not only bringing something new to the Superhero genre, but to Westerns as well. Hex is the type of character who somehow manages to grab a strong following and hold on to it; like Iron Man, I think this film may make a strong showing because of the strength of its main character. The cast also looks to have some potential as well. I'm not saying this is a solid bet for a good movie-- far from it-- but it may well be one of those surprise blockbusters in the next few years.

Green Lantern

This is said to have a script so good, that the studio antied up on directors for fear that the previous one attached would botch it up; that, dear friends, is a script. Despite this I still had reservations about the film until I saw the exceptional fan trailer that came out not to long ago-- while I'm not keen on Nathan Fillion as Hal Jordan, the trailer paints a picture of the kind of movie Green Lantern could be. Plus, it's about time that some of the cosmic properties at the big companies hit the screen. With Star Trek being the success it is, any space-type movie is likely to be charged with trying to ride on it's coat tails, so people should get on that.

I don't mean to exclude Marvel films from the list of real movies I'm excited for, but the fact is that Marvel doesn't like writers, in fact, Marvel slaps every writer on the face when they continue to hire people like David Goyer and Zac Penn (Tip: If you either name attached to a movie, save for Goyer when associated with Chris Nolan, you automatically know the movie will be badly written).

-The Wishlist-

The Question

I realize the Question is viewed as Batman light to a lot of people, but here is why I love the Question (besides how cool he looks): He actually gets to be a detective. People expect Batman to be pulse pounding action, and to have a specific set of rogue for every film, and that inevitably means there is little mystery in the crime solving. You also have to be PG-13. Both of Nolan's films have made a fight for this, but it's a tough sale for modern audiences. Hell, apparently even Sherlock Holms is an action star now! My dream project for Question would be a forties noir kind of film with shocking murders, stunning violence, vexing mystery, and topped off with unexpected last minute reveal. I'm all for Montoya as Question too, but I feel that skipping over Vic Sage is a sin, and Montoya would cause fans to expect a Batman connection.

Swamp Thing Remake (Or a Moore project done right).

I've only read the first volume of Moore's Swamp Thing, and while I found it a tad preachy (the first arc involves mother nature striking back at the Earth, among other better aspects) I sense that in the remaining volumes there is more than enough mileage for an outstanding film. The film would be best served to capitalize on the horror aspect of the comic rather than the super-heroics. The Louisiana mood would be imperative, and so would the themes of humanity. I can't say if Swamp Thing should be a plant struggling with his identity, as wonderful of a concept as that is, simply because I don't know that movie folk can swallow that. Really, it doesn't matter what Moore book you adapt, it just needs to be done well; in some cases better than the book. Comics are still fighting for public acknowledgement and in many ways Moore is the best to be found in the traditional American market.

She-Hulk

Talk about tough sales, but here's something that could be a comic- as in humor- masterpiece. A few volumes of She-Hulk ago in 2004, the comic was relaunched under the helm of writer Dan Slott. Slott, rather than taking a traditional super-hero route, wrote a volume of She-Hulk where the focus was on Jen Walter's career as a lawyer. She got herself a job at a top law firm in a newly established superheroics division to help settle law suits and the like. One arc dealt with a super-villain suing the mighty Hercules for using excess force. Another dealt with J. Jonah Jameson finally taking Spider-man to court. You get the idea. Think Harvey Birdman meets some sanity and super-heroes. The biggest problem with this is removing She-Hulk and her origin from Hulk. Of course, with a concept this nutty you could almost certainly start without explanation and people would simply except it. Anyway, the movie would be littered with throw aways for the fans, and include an intricate plot that stems from a case Jen is working-- all, naturally, a full on absurd comedy. Besides, the only female super-hero outings are Elektra and Catwoman. Ouch.

Green Arrow

I think what can be learned from this is that I like characters without powers and/or who are green. At any rate, Green Arrow is a great character and since Marvel's Hawkeye is totally unrealistic, the only possible chance for an archer to make the movie screen. Like many of the characters on this list, my knowledge of Green Arrow is limited, but from I know of his personality he's make a great screen presense. Mostly, I just really like him. I don't really know what kind of story could be forged for Green Arrow- I know that his main rival is another archer, and I'm not so sure that would work but where there is a will there is a way.

Alright, so that's not all I'm looking forward to and what I'm hoping for but that's about the best and the most of it. Iron Man 2 might have made my list if the talk of Tony deals with "personal problems" wasn't so high, and his alcholism offically ruled out. It sounds like they're pussy footing around, and my childhood favorite deserves better. Also, I saw some photos of Micky Rourke as Whiplash. Goodbye optimism.

What comic/Super-hero movies are you looking forward to? What super-heros would you want to see on the screen, realistic possibility or otherwise?

Comic Review Wednesdays - Secret Six #10

2009-06-03T21:16:00.004-04:00

Secret Six #10
Written by Gail Simone
Pencils by Nicola Scott

After two issues of "quiet" stand-alone stories, the six finally have a new gig; They've been hired to protect a mysterious large slab-looking thing (Han Solo in carbonate!) by a sketchy trio of slave drivers. Bane continues to struggle with his reawakened venom addiction, and Deadshot and Jeannette continue to flirt (in Ireland!). To complicate matters even further, the trio claim that their employer is none other than Mockingbird-- the shadowy figure who united the six in the first place.

After a brutal, and stunning opening gambit-- for some reason is seems to be a developing motif that the six's employers will inevitably become their enemies-- Simone turns her attention to the small character moments that make Six such a great comic to read. It is inevitably what makes the issues of six such a pleasure to read, so much so that you almost wish that six wasn't about a vicious mercenary group, and rather just a comic about the crazy adventures of a group of mismatched friends (frankly, it almost is already). That desire has never been more apparent than in reading the pages of this issue.

Simone is at her best when she's writing the brutal, the blackly comic and the sincere-- an odd combination to be sure, but none the less the truth of it. Simone knows her characters, and she knows what's funny but at some point in this issue she falls flat. The opening gambit is gripping, the characters moments are captivating, but with the meeting of the new employers and the six, things begin to get long winded and uninteresting. The characters make light of this later in the issue-- but it doesn't excuse the sluggishness of the scenes, and the difficulty they have grabbing an audience.

The end of the issue is something flat and not entirely gripping-- this isn't so much of a problem, it's significance will likely play into the events of the story arc-- but new readers certainly wouldn't come back after something so seemingly empty and if Secret Six needs anything, it's certainly more readers (Read it!). In addition, the characters have a strange, unsurprised response to finding out that their employer is the notorious Mockingbird. Given their association with him (I'm being careful not to reveal any spoilers from Villains United).

The fact is that Simone is a dynamite writer, at least for these characters, and they're damn good characters in addition to that (scoff at Catman if you like but he's come a long way under Simone's watchful eye). Her plots have been solid, and the solicitations for this particular arc seem very promising. Despite all of the complaints above, they're really only a light sprinkle on an otherwise perfect day. While this issue may not be the best of the run by any means, it's solid, and that's a critique I given when I didn't even feel like reading my comics this week.

RATING: 7 out of 10.
If you want to hook up with Simone's Six (please do! Marvel has already canned Captain Britain-- DC can't be too far away from scrapping six) you can start reading with this very issue, or it likely wouldn't be too difficult to find the entire 10 issues out already!

Don't Gamble. Just Move Along. [A Book Review]

2009-06-02T10:26:00.012-04:00

Nobody Move

A novel by Denis Johnson

Published April 2009

(First appeared in serialized parts in Playboy magazine throughout 2008)

The newest novel by Denis Johnson, literary fiction writer behind critically acclaimed works like Jesus' Son and Tree of Smoke, is an excersize in genre fiction that first saw publication in men's delight magazine, Playboy. Unfortunately, those coming to Johnson's work for the first time (like myself), are bound to be disappointed as they find themselves confronted with a run of the mill work of genre fiction arguably of the same forgettable quality that the cover of Johnson's work pays homage to.

Nobody Move follows Jimmy Luntz, a proud and passionate gambler with no luck to speak of, as he runs from a non-descript crime organization/loan shark to whom he owes money. The chase is lead by Gambol, a thick-headed thug with a grudge and pension for saying "fuck you" as much as Jimmy says "Wow." Along the way their paths cross with that of Anita Desilvera, the soon to be ex-wife of a county prosecutor with a vendetta of her own and a means to score 2.3 million dollars. From there, things get more complicated and spur on sex, violence, and murder.

Most disappointing is how little Johnson brought to this novel that was outside of the the typical conventions of the genre. When picking up a novel by someone like Johnson-- even if it is a work genre fiction-- there is an expectation of high quality in writing. No one expects a National Book Award winner, and Pulitzer finalist to produce the same level of material as a 5.99 straight-to-massmarket-paperback writer. What's expected is a work of genre fiction with the same level of suspense and intrigue as a genre fiction writer, but infused with literary elements, devises and themes. At the very least, Johnson could have made a statement on the nature of gambling, or the gambler, or the self-destructiveness of personal vendettas but these truths are left unexplored or only lightly touched on. In short, the work is unbecoming on a literary writer of Johnson's supposed caliber.

Without the added benefits of genre fiction by a literary writer, the novel has to be examined on it's own merits as only genre fiction (of which I'm no expert). The plot in itself is nothing original, and is in fact rather plain-looking by the standard of crime fiction. The source of the money involved is inconsequential and has little baring on the story, there is virtually no police involvement in the story despite the murders and gun-shots, the double crosses are minimal and never pull the carpet out from underneath-- they in fact have little significance on the story as a whole, and the novel can really only be called suspenseful in it's last two section at the very best. There is nothing exceptional about this work as genre fiction, and it was an active struggle to finish the last section of the novel-- the most action-packed and heated. The characters, while interesting in their own way, never really resonate and to some extent resemble the caricatures that undoubtedly proliferate the genre. Luntz and Anita hold up best under examination, particularly Luntz, but it is in large because of the concepts connected to them that never get explored.

Oddly enough, one of the most difficult aspects of the book to tolerate was the amount of sex "scenes" and references. Obviously its original publication source needs to be considered, but at the same time the scenes begin to weigh the material down because of how unnecessary they are. There are only about four instances of sex in the book, but two of them are completely unnecessary, and a third is wholly unwelcome despite its purpose. The scenes aren't even written to be erotic, thankfully, but that only makes it obvious that they were included to appease or with the intent to appease the people at Playboy. Sexual themes, subjects and scenes are welcome whenever the serve a purpose but when they have none it just reads like a pathetic appeal to the basest of human urges.

Finally, and most shockingly, it seems necessary to point out Johnson's difficult to follow prose. Things are often mentioned off-hand or completely ignored which forces the reader to reexamine a passage several times in order to comprehend what has transpired. For instance, within the first three pages Luntz is confronted by Gambol, and for whatever reason climbs into his car. The problem with that particular passage is that Luntz begins to talk about leaving the car, without Johnson referencing him ever getting in it. These types of omissions are minimal, but present. Much more common are passages in which too much happens in a single paragraph or half-page and they need to be re-read to determine what happened and how.

Other reviews I have skimmed of this novel referenced it's dialog as its saving grace, but while the dialog is fluid and natural (for a crime novel, at any rate), it is far from redeeming. Johnson's foray into genre fiction is totally unimpressive and only a dozen feet from a dismal travesty.

VERDICT: D

Comic Review Wednesdays - Batman in Barcelona: Dragon's Knight

2009-05-29T00:28:00.005-04:00

Batman in Barcelona: Dragon's Blood #1

Written by Mark Waid

Art by Diego Olmos

The inmates at Arkham are manipulative psychopaths who have never hesitated to torture whomever they chose; even one of their own. After being manipulated by Mad Hatter and Scarecrow, Killer Croc runs off to Barcelona in an effort to reenact the legend of St. George and the Dragon with the Dark Knight-- but with the Dragon claiming victory. Croc has been killing relentlessly, a young woman each night, and as the festival for St. George draws near it seems that Croc might do something extreme if he doesn't get the confrontation he's after.

First I have to say that I've never disliked Mark Waid. Kingdom Come was quite the bit of writing, and his run on Fantastic Four is still something I think of fondly, but still it was only with mild optimism that I approached this title. Despite this, Batman in Barcelona is still an inexcusable dud that I wish I hadn't waited my time on. When this one-shot was announced, I initially brushed it aside and thought that it would be just an empty killer croc story, devoid of anything of real value, and should have stuck with my first impression.

One of the more notable problems is how familiar certain elements of this story seem. Two scenes in particular-- and horribly enough the two that make up most of the soul of this piece, are total rip offs of other pieces of Batman lore. One scene in the story will strike the reader as overwhelmingly familiar because it is nearly pound for pound exactly like a scene from Batman Begins, and another will strike readers as a rip off of Morrison's Arkham Asylum which this story could well have been conceived from. Finally, there's the ending which reeks of a sappy romance movie. In short, the scenes that would have made this comic something of note are completely unoriginal, and derive from other Batman sources. If I were Waid, I'd be hanging my head in shame to do anything so obvious.

Another huge problem in this comic are the huge gaps in logic. The Barcelona public has no idea who Batman is-- a fact that would be fine, except that Batman is as much as a world icon in the DC universe as he is in our own. He's a member of the justice league-- he's helped saved the world. How can I be expected to believe that the people of Barcelona (more than just one person mind you) don't know who he is? One woman called Batman a "demon" in the issue. Ok, maybe there are people who don't know who Batman is but how the hell do you mistake a man in a suit, one foot away from you, as a demon? Additionally, this entire comic is based on the premise that Killer Croc has managed to get to Barcelona. Can someone explain to be how a 7 foot tall, prisoner escapee lizard man boarded a plane or boat unnoticed? It also expects the reader to believe that Bruce Wayne has mini-Batcaves all over the world. I'm not usually one to scoff and Bruce Wayne's paranoia but c'mon.

Even the dialog was bad. It was as though Waid had no grip on how to write a dark character like Batman. His lines always go on for too long, and characters address each other and refer to each other in contrived ways. It was simply painful to read. The art is also unredeeming. While the pages are generally well-rendered, it's often challenging to follow the action within the comic, and characters frequently have an awful stiffness to them. Olmos might be able to do fantastic pin-ups or covers, but I wouldn't want him drawing my comic.

RATING: 1 out of 10.

Worthless. Buy it if your life is just going too well and you need something to bitch about. Sorry about the review being late, but comics didn't hit the store until late Thursday.

Comic Review Wednesdays - Batman: Battle for the Cowl #3

2009-05-21T00:16:00.005-04:00

Batman: Battle for the Cowl #3 (of 3)

Written by Tony Daniel

Art by Tony Daniel

Things have not been going well since Bruce Wayne's passing; Gangs are at war, the Black Mask is terrorizing the city, and Jason Todd is running around in an armored Batman costume. The Battle for the Cowl ends here in an all out battle between Dick and Jason in a fight to see who has the right to wear the mantle of the Bat. Unfortunately little else manages to come to a head.

The most absolutely nagging problem with the final issue of Battle for the Cowl is just how much is left unresolved. Yes, by the end of the issue there is a new Batman but the happenings within this event as so extensive that there is more to put an end to. In the tie-ins, things were often left unfinished but the reader was given a crystal clear picture of the new status quo. For instance The Network tie-in gave a clear indication that Hugo Strange would likely be serving as a antagonistic force against Barbara Gordon in the future-- likely something that will come into play in the upcoming Batgirl series. In this issue however, no questions are answered surrounding the Black Mask, or how he will act in the new Bat-verse, things mentioned surrounding Jason Todd are left unrevealed, and despite it being a huge part of the series, we're still left with virtually no pay off on the Two-Face/Penguin gang war. As expected, Battle for the Cowl was taking bites too big, and even refused to shallow what it could. Readers looking for a resolution to the conflicts, or even some closure will only be half-satisfied at best. It ultimately depends how you actually cared about the inevitable Dick/Jason fight.

Also troublesome is Damian's characterization in this issue. I'm not very familiar with the character-- I actually only know the very basics of him but it isn't the accuracy of his portrayal that I'm concerned with. Jason Todd, despite all the huge events in this mini, is essentially the antagonist of this issue of Battle for the Cowl. Todd was a character so arrogant, and obnoxious that fans chose to kill him off back in the eighties when he was Robin-- and It seems that Damian is the same kind of character. He's bratty, violent, whiny and totally unlikable. Pair that with a Jason Todd story and the parallels are inescapable. Even if the writers at DC are aware of that fact, and have something planned, they should be aware that no one is clamoring for Jason Todd redux. Also troublesome in this issue is how Alfred is portrayed. It's well known that Batman characters often run a muck when they're half near dead-- and Alfred is often the neglected voice of reason in Wayne Manor. In this issue however, he encourages a wounded 14-year-old Damian to run out into a violence-ridden city to help his caretaker face a known psychopath. None of that would bother me if Alfred wasn't giving Damian the means to do it willingly. That's horrible, irresponsible mentorship, and completely unbecoming on Alfred.

On top of everything else, there are also a slew of awkwardly written moments in the comic that come off as ridiculous. At one point a wounded character gives nothing short of an expository monologue to two characters in the heat of a fight-- not even referencing them as he does, but himself. Jim Gordon also has one hell of a melodramatic bomb-line on the page he's featured that renders the entire seriousness of the moment ineffective.

RATING: 3 out of 10

Battle of the Cowl wraps up here (except for next weeks Batman Alive?)- this issue will inevitably be put into a trade, or you can pick them up at your local comic shop, however the series fails to deliver on all levels save one- actually picking the new Batman.

Roughing the Road

2009-05-17T20:30:00.003-04:00

If you know me at all, you probably know I'm a pretty fan of Cormac McCarthy's 2006 Pulitzer Prize winning novel, The Road. By the time I read it, about 10 months ago now, the movie was already well on it's way to release, and indeed by September or so movie cover editions of the book were coming out. I wasn't really sure how I felt about the idea of a movie of The Road-- I wasn't exactly for it because I didn't want it butchered, but I also thought it could make a solid (even potentially financially successful) film. In any event, the trailer for the film, as near as I can tell, hit the Internet a few days ago. You can view it here. That's right, I'm talking about a trailer again.

Before I talk about the footage itself-- I have to say that the slide-like shots in the trailer listing activities such as "wake", "search", and "hide" nearly made me want to turn the trailer off immediately. It feels like the editors wanted to convey the difficulties of the man and the boy (they have no names) and resorted to a laundry list of what they have to do to survive as a method to achive this. They obviously didn't understand how ridiculous reading words like wake and search to dramatic music is. It steals away a great deal of credibility from the get-go and if this kind of obliviousness the same creative hand that makes the movie you can expect a rough ride.

As for the trailer, I was both surprised and not by how it presented the content. The Road is a very quiet kind of novel punctuated by intense moments. The effect is like that of a good horror movie; you're constantly on edge because you never know what's coming next. Long stretches pass smoothly, you're lulled into a false sense of security, and at the most expected moment, the rug is pulled out from underneath you. The quiet moment's in McCarthy's The Road are essential to the novel, both thematically and structurally. It's possible-- maybe even likely, but I'm not going to hope-- that the trailer is misleading. The trailer makes the film look like a non-stop pulse pounder, and like this summer's Watchmen, people will likely be misled if the film is true to the source. That's fine by me. I've read the book.

Two things that weren't in the book that seem to be in the movie are first, the cause of the disaster that wrecked humanity, and second, a detailed portrayal of the man and his wife. The novel ignores the cause of the Earth's destruction, and is better for it. It doesn't matter how it ended in The Road, simply that it has and the novel concerns itself with surviving in the world as it is now. The past is irrelevant. I'd wager that's why the man's wife is mentioned as infrequently in the novel as she is as well. Her memory is a factor in this new world, but not her, and so the couples relationship isn't gone into detail. I don't exactly know that I like the idea of these two things being explored, but even what The Road is, it seems that the added content is needed to keep the movie-going audience on board. If it's handled well, then it may even have some benefit to the rest of the piece. We'll see.

Otherwise, the trailer seems very close to the book. My eyes went wide with the first shot of the desolate grey landscape. It was exactly how I had envisioned the world the character's inhabited. Every scene that's depicted seems to have come straight from the novel-- right down to the coke can scene, which comes off as rather ingenuine in the trailer. I really don't believe that boy is tasting coke for the first time. All in all I expect the film will be a rather mediocre affair. It doesn't feel like it'll have much success in finding Oscar gold or an audience. I could be wrong.

What are your thoughts? If you haven't read the book, does it interest you?

Comic Review Wednesdays - Captain Britain and MI:13 #13

2009-05-13T22:19:00.004-04:00

Captain Britain and MI:13 #13

Written by Paul Cornell

Pencils by Adrian Syaf with Leonard Kirk

It seems that the number thirteen truly is unlucky, because as promised on Cornell's blog (linked above), "huge and terrible things happen" in this new issue of Captain Britain. Dracula (yes, Count Dracula) is on a mad crusade for a sovereign vampire state and he has chosen Great Britain to call home. With the mystical precautions set by Van Helsing years earlier destroyed, Great Britain finds itself under siege by a Vampire army. At the same time, team member Faiza's father has been kidnapped and is a mere forty-eight hours away from becoming a vampire, and Spitfire (who is normally a vampire) is now commanding officer of the enemy forces against her will. Needless to say, things are bad and at the end of the issue-- they're only more despairing.

Before I talk about the issue itself, I'd like to talk about the series as a whole. Now, I started reading Captain Britain the week the third issue came out, and bought the first two issues that same day. I did this for a few reasons, not the least of which being that before I began to read this I was only reading Ms. Marvel, but I also have a strong love for this national icon/ideal characters-- with Steve Rogers dead, and little interest in the budding Bucky, I went for Brian Braddock. Fortunately for me, this title is also among one of the most consistently well-written titles at Marvel. Within the first year of the title, and two and a half story lines-- two characters died, two characters have come back, two significant relationships have formed, an invasion stopped, and a duke of hell shown his place. Within a single issue, it seems that Cornell has managed to trump all of that.

My only genuine complaint about this particular issue is that the uniforms of the characters of Captain Britain and Union Jack look so similar that it's possible to think Captain Britain threw a belt on and confuse him with Union Jack. Within the context of the issue this is cleared up but it was unclear as to what was happening until that explanation was given. Perhaps also nagging are the cameos that were included in the issue. They serve to explain some rather essential exposition, but the characters could have been anyone, and certainly the cameo avoided if they wanted to. The truth is that Marvel likely told Cornell to throw some cameos in to help sell the comic.

Otherwise, the issue moves swiftly, and thankfully manages to avoid the bothersome exposition the Cornell has been infusing into the title as of late. Of course, the end of the comic is really it's true merit. As a reader, I can only hope that what has transpired will not be retconned. As dark as it is, it brings a great layer to the story, and with Cornell's title selling less than can be expected-- you never know when the ride might come to an end. With that in mind, Cornell might as well do what he wants for the sake of the story since I'd wager that Britain probably only had six to twelve months left in it. Still, it's an outstanding book, and more people should read it.

RATING: 8 out of 10.

Great writing on Cornell's part. Great series, and often great art. Everyone should be reading this. I'm sorry this review sucks-- I've been up for like 36 hours and want to go to bed.

The Magic Returns: Princess/Frog Trailer

2009-05-11T23:55:00.014-04:00

If you're not aware already, let me start with this (Disney haters may leave now)-- Disney is returning to its 2D roots, and the first release in this style is a new take on the classic story of The Princess and the Frog which is due for release in December of this year. Now, up until earlier this week the only visuals of this film to have been released were a few stills and a teaser which featured a song from the film (the music is being done by Randy Newman)- a wonderful glimpse of things to come, and the song* had me replaying the video over and over just hear the last few words; "Dreams do come true in New Orleans."

The first real trailer for the film came out a few days ago, and I'm in absolute awe. You can watch it here. Please go do that, as what is to follow will just be a jumble of words about a series of images that won't make any sense until you do.

Ok. I hope you watched the trailer because I'm going to ruin the magic of it if you haven't by talking about it now. I cannot even begin to express how excited I am to see this movie. I think I can legitimately say that the only movie I've been this excited for in recent years was The Dark Knight. I'm a huge fan of classic Disney, pretty much everything Tarzan and earlier, and so to see that they're really going back to these 2D roots not only in concept but completely is thrilling.

Let's get the bones of it: My jaw pretty much dropped to the ground when the new princess, Tiana, turned into a frog. It's a simple enough twist really, instead of the prince becoming human, the girl becomes a frog-- sure, but It came so far out of left field for me. I knew they would have to do something in order to make a movie out of this story, but I didn't expect that at all. With the hints of the animated characters and villain, I figured they'd have more than enough to carry the film to the end with the prince alone as a frog-- but, well, there's nothing quite like a surprise.

I think Dr. Facilier, the villainous voodoo man and antagonist of the film, looks fantastic. Looking back, I don't think I had any expectations as to what he might look like other than the fact that he would be old. I certainly didn't expect a character straight out of Live and Let Die. Disney villains always seem to have a certain signature look to them that makes them distinctly a Disney villain, a certain iconic element and I think that Dr. Facilier will fit in exceptionally well. His height and the awesome skull mask really make him visually appealing, and the part in the trailer where swirling magic clouds come up around him, and he does his villainous laugh was my favorite part of the whole trailer. Also worth noting, Dr. Facilier is going to be the first Disney villain since Judge Frollo from Hunchback of Notre Dame to have a song. The villain's song was one of the hallmarks of the Disney renaissance and I'm so excited that they're back. Songs like "Poor Unfortunate Souls", and "Hellfire" are wonderful, and have a seductive, dark appeal to them that end up, at least for me, being one of the high points of the movie.

I thought that the prince came off as a funny character in the trailer. I love his mannerisms when he's relating the story to Tiana. Curiously, I thought there was a rather strange inflection in his voice when he talked of his webbed feet saying "I'm tripping over these." It came out far too dark/mean to me for the character to be totally genuine. I almost suspect that he isn't entirely what he says he is. Perhaps it's just that his character is that upset about it, but it seemed like too much for it to be just a passing statement. That avenue has certainly been taken before, maybe it will be something of a cross of Beast's backstory and the Hercules-Meg relationship. Maybe not. Thoughts?

I'm very excited for the music in this film as well. Being that it's set in New Orleans (I'm also very excited about that), it as a lot of song potential. When I think of Disney and bluesy/jazz numbers I automatically think of The Aristocats, which is far from their most notable film, but I think that genre of music could certainly lend itself well to a Disney musical if they manage to find a happy marriage between the styles. It also helps that Randy Newman is doing the music-- a thankfully very talented musician/songwriter.

Musical numbers, a beautiful setting, talking animals (that I already love), iconic villain, and an at least interesting take on an old story? Count me in. Count me in a thousand times, yes. I think every kid who grew up during the Disney Renaissance has been waiting for this (unless they hate Disney, but they're not reading right now) for years-- there is an ageless appeal to Disney's animated musicals and thank God they're coming back to them!

What did you all think of the trailer? Are you as excited as I am?

*I'm getting sick of corrections.

Reflecting Poorly: The Bad of Comic Movies

2009-05-09T13:05:00.004-04:00

Let me preface this blog with a quote from a review of Fox's most recent Super-Hero flick X-men Origins: Wolverine by Philip French of the Observer:

It's dull, bone-crushing, special-effects stuff, of interest only to hardcore fans who've probably read it all in Marvel comics.

Let me begin by saying that I don't believe that Mr. French speaks for everyone, but that I believe what he expresses in the above quote says a great deal about the laymen perception of graphic literature. I say graphic literature as a whole, and not simply American comics, or super-hero comics because I believe that the uninitiated see little distinction between these genres. This quote, and what it entails suggests to me that the comic book movie's success (as a genre, not specifically Wolverine) is doing little to help graphic literature in the long run.

When you refer to comic books in America, there is a natural association with the super-hero genre, and rightly so. Super-heros entered into the American culture about seventy years ago, and the major companies that produce super-hero comics dominate the American Market with something along the lines of 70-85% of the pie. But that in itself isn't the issue, the issue is that for whatever reason the general movie goer seems to take these adaptation as the gospel truth of the comics, unless of course they carry the heft of The Dark Knight- in which case fully credit is given to the film's writer and director. The result is that these film's failures are chalked up to bad source writing, and the successes are attributed to the film makers. In effect, these films do nothing to help Graphic Literature.

Look at the reviews for The Dark Knight if you doubt this. I believe that Chris Nolan did put his own spin on Batman and the Joker in crafting the Dark Knight, but one of the things that seems to constantly be ignored when the film is discussed is how the likes of The Killing Joke, The Long Halloween, or dozens of other well-written Batman stories effected the final piece. I won't deny that The Dark Knight brought about an increase in the number of Batman trades purchased, but those numbers as nothing compared to the box office the film brought in, and when the film is discussed it is still discussed as Nolan's Batman. What bothers me about this isn't that Nolan can't "have" a Batman, certainly people refer to Batman in the same way when talking about major creators like Denny O'Neil or Frank Miller-- what bothers me is that when people discuss Nolan's Batman is seems as though they're talking about a new identity rather than a cumulatively built one.

In the case of Wolverine, it feels as though because the film is floundering critically (although a fiscal enough success to garner two additional sequels and fast track two others) the blame is being put toward the comics or fanboys. As though there was a die-hard Wolverine fan who pissed their pants in excitement when Gambit, Emma Frost, Blob, and Cyclops were revealed to be in the film. Worse yet, there are people who will take the film as comic book cannon and continue to be dismissive of the literature, knee-deep genre though it may be. I remember years ago, sometime in 2003, I went to see the first Hulk movie directed by Ang Lee and as I left the theater disgusted and disappointed, (to those who site it as being a good film, but bad adaptation: you're wrong. It's a horrible, horrible film. I can never get more than fifteen minutes in) I overheard someone say to their date that evening something to the effect of, "Did you know about all of that stuff with his father? I had no idea." -- for whatever reason comic adaptations are believed to be faithful, though everyone seems to know that Hollywood bastardizes novels with nearly every other adaption.

How are Comics ever really going to get a fair shake? With an audience that assumes only super-hero films have material related to comics, with film being a more recognized art form, with poorly written films being taken in for cannon, and with the best of the bunch in comics being sweeping epic stories nearly impossible to tell in 2-3 hours-- what hope does graphic literature really have of gaining recognition from comic movies? I don't believe there's much.

I'm consistently amazed as how little the uninitiated know about comic books. Honestly, when I hear people talk about comic movies, and they're not comic readers themselves It's almost painful. Comic books, graphic novels, manga, graphic literature, however you slice it and label it, aren't just kids books, or the format for mediocre writers. They're not just fight scenes and explosions, They're not just about colorful tights, mechanized robots, and big boobs. There's no denying that those things proliferate graphic literature, they sell, but so do awful comic book adaptations that are built around special effects, and formulaic romantic comedies, and Adam Sandler movies but we don't hold any of those things against film as an art form, do we? No. So why are comic book stories not given their due? I may be off base, but I don't think I am.

Success and My First Public Reading

2009-05-08T11:03:00.006-04:00

Last night was the public reading for SCAD's 2009 volume of Artemis, the college's official literary journal. One of my pieces of writing, The Pigeon Man, was included in the volume so naturally I was there to read an excerpt. I arrived early at about 6PM for the 7PM reading after catching some dinner and sat around waiting for things to get moving. I watched the entire event get set up-- the mic testing, laying out of the food, laying out the copies of Artemis, and practised my reading while all this was going on. Not long after things were set up, one of the professors who edited the journal began putting together a reading order. I approached her, told her I would be reading an except from my story, and she put me down in what she called "lucky slot number six."

The event was much busier than I expected it would be, and as the event was starting a nervousness started to build in the pit of my stomach. That nervousness ratcheted up notch by notch with each of the first few readers that left the podium as my own reading came closer. The fifth reader stepped up to the podium and read a very short piece that I don't believe I caught a word of and finally it was time for me to go to the podium. I looked to the professor doing the introductions, waiting to hear my name called, and what escaped her lips sounded nothing like my name. In fact, it sounded like it was a girl's name. I'm pretty sure it was because a girl walked up to the stage and started to read. I didn't think too much of it, I figured that I had been moved so that the professor could keep the variation of readers she had wanted. Still, someone else was called after that girl, and then someone else, and then someone else, and by the time slot ten rolled around it seemed pretty sure I had been skipped over. I thought perhaps I'd be called up at the very end, thinking the professor had surely realized her mistake, but the last reader left the podium, thanks were given, and the night was over. Thus were the events of my first public reading, or rather, the events of the night of what was to be my first public.

It seems nothing short of appropriate, in all honesty. A collegiate publication is actually worth some metal if it doesn't publish student work, but since SCAD's literary magazine is exclusively student work it's hardly notable. With only a few hundred copies printed, I believe 200, and somewhere along the lines of 35 writers in the collection- most assuredly snatching more than one volume- it doesn't leave a heck of a lot of room for circulation even around the SCAD campus. In reality, getting published in Artemis is only good for getting some respect for yourself as a writer, and for being able to throw a minor trifle on the resume.

The entire time I was at the Artemis reading, I couldn't shake the feeling that it was just one big self-indulgent, self-congratulating affair. A significant portion of those in attendance were either included in the volume, edited it, or were there to support their friends. I'm sure the number of non-involved persons with a genuine interest was minimal. Still, there is something special in being recognized. Twice that day I was approached by people I know with congratulations, and though being included in the volume wasn't much more than proof that I have some merit as a writer to me, it was still rewarding to hear other writers acknowledge the inclusion.

Success is something that doesn't come to those in the arts everyday. It's rare unfortunately, but at least that makes it that much more rewarding. Artemis may not be important in the scheme of things, it's a small thing that come ultimate career success or failure will always mean very little but like I've been saying: You take success where you find it and drink it up as much as you can.

Comic Review Wednesdays - The Network #1

2009-05-06T22:36:00.004-04:00

The Network #1 (of 1)
Written by Fabian Nicieza

Pencils by Don Cramer and J. Calafiore

With Gotham fighting for it's life, Oracle's Network of allies is forced to run around stopping crime after crime without end. Things get worse when old Batman nemesis Hugo Strange kidnaps three people, two of questionable morality and a third that is old and mentally debilitated. He seeks to challenge the new gun-toting caped crusader by promising to kill two individuals once one of them is saved. Oracle intercepts this challenge and it's up to her and the Network to ensure that all of these people make it out alive. A Battle for the Cowl tie in.

The biggest problem this issue faces is that the level of threat in the issue seems minimal. Hugo Strange is no slouch, sure, but when you pit him Huntress, Batgirl, Manhunter, Ragman, Misfit and more there begins to be a small issue. Additionally, the plan is something typical of Hugo Strange and his obsession with Batman and so when the city is falling apart around our heroes it seems inappropriate to give so much attention to a crime that, while disturbed, is small in scale compared to what else might be going on. If Gotham weren't in such a horrible position, and Strange wasn't so badly out matched, then this story might have had some solid potential, but with so much stuff going on, it makes a person wonder how many people died while the entire Network was dicking around with Strange. It's also of note that the entire plot is a less successful version of the Harvey/Rachel events in the Dark Knight.

The issue focuses on Huntress and Batgirl primarily but also makes concerns itself with a very thin plotline involving Misfit. Not being familiar with what has been going on with those characters, a great deal on the content was lost to me. Certainly I understand who they are, and how they act but I got no indication as to what had developed between them to make their current relationship what it was. This isn't to say I want a pages of exposition explaining it, but something to give me some indication would have been incredibly helpful. I didn't even get the impression that Batgirl was in the Network anymore. Regardless, it just made the issue that much more of a drag as I didn't know how to approach what I was reading.

The story is also riddled with logical plot holes-- such as Oracle revealing information to characters when she would know their response wouldn't help the situation, or how some things have come to pass if they were so easily resolved. Interesting, the two instances I've mentioned feature Barbra Gordon being incredibly dumb and impossibly smart. A passive reader might not notice these or concern themselves with them but they're certainly there. The problems that plague this issue are numerous, but not quite crippling. It's more as though this Batman comic were written by a mediocre or student writer.

RATING: 4 out of 10

Avoid it if you like, or read it if you're keen on Batman (or Hugo Strange, I suppose). It seems to be setting something rather minor for the future of the Bat-verse.

A Super Important Return

2009-04-30T23:41:00.010-04:00

The resurrection used to be a staple of the super-hero world, to the point that it was even given a label; the Jesus syndrome. In recent years death has replaced that-- we've seen the untimely demise of everyone from the notable like Captain America and Batman to the not-so-notable but well established Wasp but apparently the super-hero resurrection hasn't been entirely done away with. In the pages of Final Crisis: Legion of Three Worlds #4, Superboy made a return from the dark lands of death, back to the pages of comics. If this bit of under-the-radar news already caught you try this on for size: In August Superboy will once again star in his own comic series-- Adventure Comics-- which will be relaunched with Geoff Johns at the helm.

First, I should mention that it's impossible for me to express how excited I am about this bit of news. I had up until now been considering picking up Dini's Streets of Gotham or Yost's Red Robin when they launched in June in addition to my new pull of Detective Comics but those plans have been thoroughly scrapped. Johns is undoubtedly the best super-hero comics writer out there today. I don't mean to say he brings more thought or intelligence to the table than the likes of Moore or Gaiman but the man knows how to tell some of the most absorbing, fun and all around entertaining super-hero stories. I followed his run on Teen Titans in trade, where in addition to being exposed to his wonderful writing, I was also introduced to Superboy. I never read so far as Superboy's death (though I do own it, and intend to get to it sometime) but I did really like the character. He was an realistic, adolescent Clark Kent-- Mostly good natured but entirely a teenager. It also helped that Johns knows how to write teenage characters; with complete respect for the personal issues they're facing.

I couldn't be more pleased about Superboy getting his own title (although it seems like it may deal with the Legion of Super-heroes as well). He hasn't had one since the 90s, I believe, when he was wearing that awful leather jacket and red tights. The guy looks a lot better in jeans and a T, yeah? I wouldn't doubt the ill chosen costume from the 90s wasn't one of the contributing factors to the series decline.

So let me break this down: Superboy is coming back to the spotlight, Geoff Johns is writing a new title, and the art is gorgeous. If you're not reading any Super-hero comics and you want to-- I'd suggest you pick this up when it rolls around in August. If I were a tad more bold I'd say I insist. While you're at it, you might want to look at Rucka's Detective Comics in June, too. Superboy is back, and goddamn if I'm not going to be reading that comic.

Edit: So apparently I can't read. That's not too surprising because I barely manage to write coherent sentences. I initially thought Action would be relaunching for this project, but it turns out Superboy will be appearing in Adventure comics-- thanks to the commenter for setting me straight on that-- so there's that. I edited this sucker up to avoid confusion because apparently there are people actually stumbling onto my blog (Creepy).

Comic Review Wednesdays - Ms. Marvel #38

2009-04-29T23:31:00.008-04:00

Ms. Marvel #38

Written by Brian Reed

Art by Rebekah Isaacs

There's been a new Ms. Marvel in the Marvel Universe since the beginning of Dark Reign, and with the death of Carol Danvers she has usurped her title in addition to her mantle. Because Osborn's Avengers are more in the public eye then ever before, it's been decided that they need to have additional physical and psychological examinations-- the latter being a dangerous thing to put to ruthless killers and psychopaths. Norman forces Karla to be examined first believing her background as a psychologist will help size this examiner up. The secession proves to more than all parties bargained for.

First, I should say that I haven't been a fan of the idea of a protagonist switch since it was announced a few months ago. Super-hero comics are different from other media in that they don't typically end until cancellation, and the result is that people get angry when their favorite characters die/go away because that's just not how that super-hero comics work. For many, the character is the reason for reading rather than the events (and sometimes even quality) of the book. Whenever a comic announces a changing of the guard it's most often not the best thing for sales, and God knows Ms. Marvel doesn't have the readership to lose. It's unfortunate then that after resigning to come into this issue with an open mind regarding the new protagonist that character should be one of the biggest problems with the issue.

What I had expected from this issue was a simple exploration into the mind of the new Ms. Marvel-- that would have certainly justified the action-packed but ultimately irrelevant opening scene-- but Reed seemed to have different intentions. Once the psychologist has entered the picture, he's almost an instantly dislikable guy which on the surface seems fine given that he is essentially the antagonistic force of the issue, although it's jarring and (for myself, perhaps others) unwelcome turn of events, but once his motives are revealed in the issue things begin to get complicated. Because the examining psychologist is a ruthless, and malicious character the reader has an instant dislike of him, but his motivations flip the tables-- a move that would be technically brilliant if Reed had intended it.

Reed's failure on this front comes from the thing that concerned me from the onset: The character we've followed for thirty-seven issues is dead! Carol Danvers, a character we grew to like, or at least remained interested in, bit the dust last issue, and Karla, this new Ms. Marvel, should be considered new to the readership. Yes, Marvel has a broad, interconnected universe in which Karla has been a player in for a long time but whenever you have a new protagonist and a readership that isn't necessarily familiar with them, you need to make that readership care about the new character to keep them on board.

Here the facts: Karla is a murderous, manipulative, and downright mean bitch. That doesn't mean she can't be a successful protagonist, but it means that certain elements of her personality need to redeem her; she needs to be funny, captivatingly vicious, or something so that when a character I've disliked since the beginning of the issue reveals why he's doing what he's doing I'm not rooting for him! The fact that I wanted the antagonist force of the issue to topple Karla despite that I disliked him from the beginning says volumes about Reed's ability to make this character remotely interesting.

Nothing in this issue made me want to continue with the new protagonist, and the events themselves were hopelessly dull. The most interesting aspects of the issue were at the very end when it began to get horribly violent. Why should I care about any of this? Is there anything captivating about a bank heist by generic villains, or hulk shaped manifestations? No.

RATING: 3 out of 10

This is the point to start reading Ms. Marvel if you're at all interested, but with an issue that's best aspects were some violent panels and interesting notes on the legacy of Ms. Marvel, I wouldn't recommend it.

Ruminating and Rambling on Kindle

2009-04-26T09:56:00.006-04:00

We live in a time where digital conversion is the future, and with the publishing industry wobbling on the fence half the time there are a great number of eyes on Amazon's kindle. Kindle, now on in it's second iteration, is an electronic reader that's best described as an Ipod for books. On Friday, the New York Times posted an interesting bit on the kindle 2, and the quiet kind of effects, as opposed to earth-shaking ones, that kindle might have.

Primarily, the article (amusingly and appropriately in the fashion and style section) reflects on what they call "literary snobbism", that is judging people based on what it is they're reading. As a shameless pursuer of this activity, it's something of interest to me. Generally speaking, people rarely surprise you. If you see someone in the book store, the section they're in and the book they're holding generally says a lot about them. The same can be said when you see someone reading in public; Perhaps if they were reading a favorite author or book you've been meaning to get to you might approach them to strike up a conversation but otherwise you likely wouldn't bother. To see someone reading in public is to know something about them without ever having to talk with them. It's as if their favorite movie or TV show was branded on their face. Kindle, with it's uniform white tableture appearance, threatens to make quick literary snob judgments obsolete. Would you approach someone if you didn't know if they were reading Nora Roberts or Clive Barker, or Charles Dickens? It's doubtful. It would be similar to walking up and asking someone what was on their Ipod. Sure, you can do it, but like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get.

When I happen to see someone reading in public, I'm immediately happy, but also I'm not two seconds away from trying to find out exactly what they're reading and judging them accordingly. I don't necessarily feel that these judgements are important, except perhaps as the article notes, if you plan on using them as a conversation in with someone you find intellectually attractive but I do feel that they play a necessary part in how we build our relationships with others on a more subconscious level. For instance, you might come to know someone well enough that you talk occasionally, or even regularly-- If they go around wearing a shirt promoting the new Michael Bay movie while you've been a connoisseur of European art films for the last twelve years, you're probably going to avoid discussing movies unless proof of a more common interest arises. This is how people end up knowing each other for years without guessing they both have a passionate love for something: If all indications say there isn't a common interest there, the topic won't come up. If I see someone reading Nora Roberts, I'm not likely to mention what I'm reading because it almost certainly isn't their cup of tea which means that the conversation isn't likely to extend much farther beyond an exchange of "Oh, Is it good?"

The bookshelf is another subject the article manages to touch on. I feel comfortable saying that my pitiful bookshelf, something I only started getting interested in developing about a year ago, is a source of pride for me. I may only have thirty novels on my "read" shelf-- not even quite enough to fill it-- but each one of those books is a badge of honor. They're each a small accomplishment, that when assembled together make up something more. What can Kindle do to match that? To my knowledge, not much.

My landlord has been showing the apartment off to prospective new tenants in the past few weeks, and every so often when I'm gearing up to leave so that I won't be in their way, I wonder if any of them have walked up to my bookshelf and perused my choice of literature. It's an act that's not at all dissimilar to checking to see what a person is reading in public. Kindle has the power to take that away too. How does one look at an electronic library? After all, Kindle has the capacity to hold up to 1, 500 books. That's as if you read a book and a half each month for the duration of your adolescent and adult life, about seventy years. Even some of the very most avid readers would have difficulty filling that up in less then five years. You would never need a bookshelf again with that kind of space.

Frankly, I liked being judged on what's on my bookshelf and what I read-- and I like being able to hold everyone else to that too. Books say so much more about a person then a movie or a TV does because a book requires that much more time and effort to get through. There is a kinship in finding someone who has read and enjoyed the same authors as you that isn't necessarily there with movies and TV because they're so much shorter, and easier to experience more of.

The article concludes with writers talking about if they like the idea of their work being read on Kindle-- and those asked seemed fine with it. Why should they be anything but fine with it? All that's really important to a writer is if they're being read (and hopefully well-received). It wouldn't bother me if I was being read on a kindle, I'd be happy about that, but it doesn't mean I'm happy about all the other stuff that might come of them. I love books-- not just fiction-- but books. I love the physicalness of books, and the work it takes to build a collection of read books. I love hardcovers, and dust jackets and first editions, and paper backs so long that it isn't an awkward mass market.

Some people ridicule those on myspace or facebook for identifying themselves by things that other people have created-- but the fact is, that's what we do as people. It's important that we know what each other are interested in because that's how we build our relationships. Judging people by what they read isn't just a literary snobs way of finding out about the person reading at the nearby table-- because sure as hell if that person is a Nora Roberts fan, and the person reading is too, a blossoming conversation is likely inevitable so long as said party isn't too shy. And why should Kindle want to mess with a beautiful thing like that?

How do you feel about Kindle? Are you worried about the more serious effects it might have, such as turning printed fiction into a collectors market? Do you like the idea of people not knowing what you're reading unless they ask? Does digital conversation bother you at all?

Comic Review Wednesdays - Detective Comics #853

2009-04-22T23:51:00.006-04:00

Detective Comics #853

Written by Neil Gaiman

Pencils by Andy Kubert

In a surreal pastiche of the life and times of Batman's past, Bruce Wayne watches over his own funeral as both friends and enemies come forward and detail the death of Batman as they know it. Gaiman brings closure to the death of Batman in a work that draws parallels to Alan Moore's Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?

The comic begins in much of the similar fashion the entire first issue played out, that is recitations on Batman's death, but unlike in the first issue they lack flair and depth. Part of the reason for this is because unlike the first issue, that isn't this book's intent. The problem, of course, is that the stories of Batman's death were wonderfully entertaining and clever. As a reader I was disappointed that (at the very least) a third story of Batman's death wasn't included in the final issue. The glimpses of rather uninteresting stories are a poor substitution. Particularly once the guiding figure from the first issue is revealed, I wish that she had been given the opportunity to relate a version of Batman's death. The possibility for strong emotional connection for the reader at that moment, should Gaiman chosen to pursue it, would have been immense. That said, I have a sour feeling knowing that this is only a two-issue story, and that readers aren't privileged to some of the other possibilities of the caped crusader's death. After all, when will we get a chance to read a story like this again?

From the start, Gaiman has been playing with the different iterations of the Batman characters of the past 70 years, and that seems to come to a head in this issue. With so many writers and artists touching the world of Batman in that time, it's unsurprising that Batman been pulled back and forth in a million directions in all that time. The happy-go-lucky Batman of the forties is different than Frank Miller's Batman, and his is different than the modern Batman. It seemed to me that Gaiman was using these different iterations of the characters, and their individual deaths to express that we as individuals die many times in our lifetimes as we change with age-- but at our cores there is something solid, and unchangeable to us. I think that Gaiman was wisely painting Batman as an Everyman figure, who like the reader will and has, changed many times in his life but was always fundamentally about perseverance, protectorship, and a testament of the human will.

The scenes of Batman's death in this issue are lackluster, and Gaiman struggles at several points in the story to convey the ideas he wants to convey without seeming stilted or expositional. There are a small handful of pages like the latter and in the midst of an otherwise good issue they feel awkward and difficult to read. However, the end of the issue is still an emotional moment, and wraps up the legacy of the dark knight rather well. The issue may not be as captivating or interesting at the first part, but it is certainly worth finishing for it's sincerity of subject alone.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

It's worth finishing if you picked up the first issue, and does the caped crusader justice. However, it tends to fail to meet expectations. These will probably get difficult to find very quickly so get them now.

2009 Pulitzer Prize Winners Announced

2009-04-20T18:39:00.005-04:00

A few hours ago, the 2009 Pulitzer prizes were announced at Columbia University. The Pulitzer prize, as if any one didn't know, is an annual award given as a token of accomplishment in three major categories: Journalism, Letters and Drama and Musical Composition. Each category also has numerous sub-divisions. The Pulitzer is an American award, and tends to favor subjects that deal specifically with American life. The winners also receive the lovely added bonus of $10,000.

The 2009 winner for Fiction was Elizabeth Strout's novel Olive Kitteridge. Kitteriage is Strout's third novel, and is about a woman unhappy with the changes that have happened in her small Maine town, and the world at large. At same time, Olive is unaware of the rather dire turns in the lives of those she knows. Through the novel Kitteridge "is brought to a deeper understanding of herself" and the novel "offers profound insights into the human condition–its conflicts, its tragedies and joys, and the endurance it requires." The two finalists that were chosen were Plague of Doves by Louise Erdrich and All Souls by Christine Schutt. The former is about the struggle over land between Whites and Native Americans in North Dakota, and the latter about a harrowing work about a senior at an all girls private school struggling with a rare cancer.

Here is what makes me happy about this year's winners for best fiction: I know nothing about any of them! I had been looking up different projections about which novels might take the prize this year, and with new releases from Toni Morrison, John Updike, Philip Roth and Joyce Carol Oates it seemed like it should have been a competitive year by all appearances. Yet, I've seen criticism that Morrison's A Mercy was retreading familiar territory for Morrison as an author. Updike's The Widows of Eastwick I've seen blasted a hundred different places. Anyone who's been reading my blog knows how I felt about Roth's Indignation. As for Oates' new book I haven't heard anything at all, but at the rate she puts work out, who can keep up?

Even if those four pillars of modern fiction had each put out stunning works, it's better to see less prominent writers win. After all, the Pulitzer is one of the means by which the greats of our time are chosen. The fact that the award was wasn't given to one of literature's favored sons or daughters also demonstrates how much harder it is to earn your metal when the playing field is level. It's rewarding to see that pieces aren't simply chosen by the committee because said authors did stunning work in the past.

The prize for Drama went to a play entitled Ruined by Lynn Nottage that vividly and horrifically detailed the Congo as a warzone proliferated by such terrible acts as "rape and brutality". The finalists were Gina Gionfriddo's Becky Shaw, a comedy about familial and romantic relationships and Lin-Manuel Miranda and Quiara Alegria Hudes' 2008 Tony winning musical In The Heights that "celebrates the virtues of sacrifice, family solidarity and gritty optimism." You can listen to a sampling of In The Heights on Youtube here. As for the others, I haven't ever heard of them, but that's bound to change now that movie producers are sure to have their eyes on them. I probably should know them considering that's pretty much my field.

If you're interested some of the winners that were annouced today you can look them up here.

Still, I'm curious. In taking a look at the previous winners of the Pulitzer, I noticed that there were a stunning few I have actually read. In fact, the extent of the list is this: To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee (1961), The Killer Angels by Michael Sharra (1975), and The Road by Cormac McCarthy (2006). How many Pulitzer prize winners have you read? Do you believe the Pulitzer is a good indicator of merrit? Do you feel compelled/want to read any of this year's winners? Have you read them?

Shelf Space: Struggling to Read what you Bought

2009-04-19T10:16:00.029-04:00

On Friday, I finished reading a short story collection by Joyce Carol Oates and as soon as I was done, I eagerly approached my bookshelf to take a look at what unread books were sitting there waiting for attention. After about fifteen minutes of internal debate, and another five of discussion with my roommate, I came to choose Neil Gaiman's Anansi Boys which has been on my shelf for about two years. Gaiman's novel won out over a stack of another eighteen novels and short story collections. Despite the large number of books I had to choose from, Gaiman was simply a best available choice-- the books I really want to read at the moment are no where near by bookshelf.

The reasons for that are varied, mostly because I have too many books on my shelf already to hedonisticly go about buying more. The books came from a variety of places: collections and novels I didn't read for the classes they were assigned, bargain bin and closing sales, books I thought I'd enjoy but whose prose style turned me off very early on, and simply books that I haven't gotten to yet. In short, despite the rather large number of unread books on my shelf there's a stunning few I'm biting at the bit to read.

I've attempted to adopt methods to cure this, such as reading two books on my shelf for every one I buy, or even alternating between shelf book and new book but ultimately it's a loosing battle. The lure of what I don't own usually ends up winning, and something else is bought and read or the shelf is added to. Just as I said last week, there is simply not enough time to read all of the books you need to, and even there were were who has the patience to read them all?

I read nineteen books in 2008, and including Gaiman's Anansi Boys that's exactly how many books are on my shelf. Can I really be expected to read through my shelf without buying anything new? If not, When can I buy something new? What about that damn copy of Admission that is supposed to be coming in the mail?!

The whole situation is incredibly frustrating, and it's got me to write up a list of books I'm desperate to read, but don't have my hands on. Here's what I wish I had to choose from and why (Alphabetical by Author):

1) The New York Trilogy by Paul Auster - Interestingly, this book trilogy can't be found in single versions any more-- which isn't so much a loss as they're all novellas anyway. I was turned on to Paul Auster when I was given the comic book adaptation of City of Glass (the first in the trilogy) about a month ago. The adaptation was fascinating, and fully aware that these things only tend to get worse in adaptation-- I'm keen on reading the source.

2) The Hellbound Heart by Clive Barker - This is the novella that would inspire the horror franchise Hellraiser (I think you can find Pinhead's resemblance on the cover, yeah?). Clive Barker's passages are near legendary in their ability to revolt the reader they're so gruesome, and that alone is enough to make me interested, but the fact that it also inspired the Hellraiser franchise, and is incredibly short while being one of Barker's more notable pieces of fiction helps seal the deal. Besides, I love creepy stuff.

3) The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay by Michael Chabon - Growing up a comic reader, anything that's labeled as "Super Hero Deconstruction" is bound to catch my interest. A few weeks ago I was reading Superfolks, the granddaddy of that particular theme. Should a novel also be Pulitzer prize winning as this one is, it's guaranteed to make my pull list. It also doesn't hurt that I can still find it in hardcover, and that its cover is pretty neat.

4) Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick - Aside from having probably one of the best titles for a book ever written, this book is also the basis for the film classic Blade Runner. While, I'm not a Blade Runner fan (in fact, I've never seen more than 10 minutes) the book (and film) interests me. In addition to that Dick is the author of a book called The Man in the High Castle which was the first work to combine the past and the future to creature an alerted timeline-- similar to what I'm working on now. High Castle is on my pull list too, but I'm more interested in reading Dick's claim to fame.

5) Welcome to Hard Times by E. L. Doctorow - The first Doctorow book I read was his most notable novel, Ragtime. The second was a much less significant work entitled The Waterworks that I didn't like nearly as much. I'm a huge fan of historical fiction, and Doctorow is one of the most notable literary writers for that particular niche. Welcome to Hard Times is one of Doctorow's more notable works - I believe what made him famous- and hoping it will have the same feel that Ragtime did. Besides, the title is amazing.

6) Jesus' Son by Dennis Johnson - I'm a huge fan of the short story, and I would prefer it to the novel if short story collections weren't such a pain for me to read through. One of my favorite writers is Raymond Carver, and amazon seems to think that because I like Carver, I'll like Johnson-- plus his collection comes wildly recommended. Johnson was also the finalist for the Pulitzer for fiction last year. I think that's enough to get me to read a 160-something page collection.

7) The Stand by Stephen King - As I mentioned, I'm a huge horror fiction fan - I love stuff that's creepy and off-beat even if it doesn't scare me. About 4 or 5 years ago I devoured Stephen King novels; I probably read more than 15 of them within six months. One of the more notable books I never got to was King's magnum opus, The Stand. It's something I've wanted to correct for a long time but because of the novel's incredible length I never managed to.

8) Gone With The Wind by Margaret Mitchell - If The Stand is the horror epic I've never managed to get to, then Gone With the Wind is the historical fiction epic I've never gotten to. Aside from that is spawned one of the most successful, and fantastic movies of all time-- Gone with the Wind is also one of the most significant works of historical fiction ever written, though perhaps a bit inaccurate. Another amazing title that's lost it's umph because it's so much a part of the public consciousness.

9) Voices from the Fire by Alan Moore - Moore is a legend in the comic world, but only one of his works is a piece of fiction, in the novelistic sense of the word. The subject, and ideas in the novel are absolutely irrelevant to me, and I only have a vague idea of what the work is about. Really, the reason I want to read this is because it's Alan Moore's only work of prose. Also, that's not the whole cover. It's an awkwardly shaped book and wouldn't scale properly.

10) The Right Hand of Sleep by John Wray - I recently read my first book by John Wray and I was very impressed. In an interview, he admitted that he wrote his most recent work to appeal more to younger readers (20s and 30s) because the fact that his reading demographic was much older bothered him, him being a writer in his mid-thirties and read mostly by people older than forty. Wray's two other novels are historical fiction-- and while I'm sure they're equally good-- this one has a better title and cover.

Anyway, That's my list of books I'm dying to read. Actually, the list of books I'm dying to read is much, much longer than that but these are the ones I'm jonzing for the most. Is it wrong to want to buy more books even though I have so many still on my shelf? Do you have this problem? Are there any books you're jonzing to read?

Comic Review Wednesdays - Oracle: The Cure #2

2009-04-16T00:27:00.006-04:00

Oracle: The Cure #2 (Of 3)

Written by Kevin Vanhook

Pencils by Julian Lopez and Fernando Pasarin

The anti-life equation is scattered across the Internet in code, and promises to be able to restore "life" if all of the pieces are assembled. A desperate Noah Kuttler -- The Calculator-- seeks to collect the pieces to bring his daughter back to consciousness but his plans crossed paths with Oracle, Barbara Gordon. Unaware of the Calculator's goal and spurred into action by the death of an associate, Barbara begins to find herself in a whole lot of trouble. A battle for the cowl tie-in.

The confusing description of the anti-life equation above is nothing compared to the complicated nature of the title's plot. In writing the description, it occurred to me that I don't have any idea as to what the anti-life equation really is despite it being the origin point of this entire story. Part of this is likely because anti-life may not be new to the Oracle mini-series [though it might be], but it's also because comic book writers don't know anything about science or technology. It's difficult to explain complicated ideas that exist, it's even more difficult to expose on ideas and technology that is complicated and doesn't exist. Within the few weeks since the first issue was released I've forgotten much of the details, the first of which was the made up scientific logic. It gets even worse in this issue. The comic spends much of its time talking, rather dully, about aspects of technology. Not only do most readers not care, they're also not likely to try and make sense of what you're written.

Captions run rampant in this second issue, when I fail to recall them ever being present in the first. They're effective when necessary to the story telling, but generally horribly written; far too over the top and faux writerly. They hamper the pace of the story, and are never very interesting. I found myself wanting to skip over them entirely.

It seems uncertain as to what Vanhook is building towards with Oracle, but it seemed that she was excessively violent and temperamental then she had ever been before. If I were asked to compose a list of comic characters who I believed to be quick to anger, Barbara Gordon certainly wouldn't be any where on it. These scenes felt uncomfortable, and far too much out of place even for a highly stressed Oracle. The captions seemed to mirror this mental state as well which further added to the oddness of the entire characterization.

Most concerning is Vanhook's insistence that the wheel-chair bound Barbara Gordon flaunt her sex appeal. In the first issue the reader watches her take a shower-- in this issue she is hit on and nearly gang raped. Even the cover of the issue emphasises this idea by prominently displaying her cleavage, bra and mid-drift. It's almost as Vanhook is making a fetishistic appeal to the reader with a "Disabled don't mean undesirable" theme. A handy-capped person being sexual is fine, but Oracle's seductiveness has become a very prominent aspect of the work-- and the situation is far too uncomfortable. Hopefully this aspect of the story will have some profound impact on its conclusion, but generally it doesn't seem so.

Rating: 3 out of 10.

First issue seemed promissing, but it feels like all the bad aspects of it carried over while the good ones didn't. If you want to read Oracle, the first two issues are available on comic shelves.

Hollywood seeks Spring Awakening

2009-04-14T19:32:00.005-04:00

Earlier today I was making my daily website run, checking to make sure that no earth shattering news had hit the web in the middle of the night, when I came across this. It seems that Terminator Salvation director McG (Yes, that's really what he goes by) is interested in directing a film adaptation of the 2007 tony winner for best musical, Spring Awakening.

Spring Awaking is a musical by Steven Sater and Duncan Sheik based on the 1891 play of the same name by Frank Wedekind. The story details the lives of a group of 19th century German teens as they struggle to deal with their budding sexuality in a society that refuses to discuss the topic. It makes the modern equivalent of sexual confusion look like a cake-walk. The characters each struggle with their own adolescent problems, most of which sexual, and generally one of the character's plights is likely to hit close to home. It's a fantastic, and tragic piece of drama which I expected to be adapted to film almost as soon I first heard of it about two years ago.

Spring Awakening garnered a lot of attention for shaking up the theater world-- on a Broadway in which most musicals are high-budget and showy, Spring Awaking was a sober production that managed to capture both the highs and lows of youth. I had the pleasure of seeing Spring Awakening shortly after its Tony win, while most of the original cast, including the leads, were still with the production. There are a number of reasons why Spring Awakening works so well, but one of them was that the songs weren't treated as busty numbers but rather as interior monologues. They reinforced this idea by putting the show on in a comparatively small space, and decorating the walls with pictures, mirrors, and other objects. The show didn't even have a traditional set-- the items were literally put to the walls of the theater space. Consciously or not for the viewer, this helped to establish that the production was largely taking place within the character's heads.

This is going to be one the greatest challenges for the adaptation. The fact is that what works exceptionally well on stage, won't work "at all" on film, at least that's likely how it will be approached. A naturalistic set is going to be a given of the production, that's just how films are-- which already sets the piece miles apart from the stage production. The next issue is how you address the songs if you don't have the benefit of a surreal-like black space? Realistically, many of these songs take place in dark bedrooms and deserted hillsides, which has problems of its own. Now, what helped to bridge the gap between audience and production was that the show examined what everyone has to deal with in growing up-- a fact that I think was bolstered by the soft-gloved uncomfortably the stage production has. Seeing a man fake masturbation, or two teenagers faking sex on stage (People on the left see boobie, people on the right see man-butt. People in the middle are disappointed?) puts the audience on edge because the act is happening in front of them-- that uncomfortably helps to mirror that which the characters are dealing with. The gay kiss and the teaching masturbation scenes likely don't help put people at ease either. That immediacy, and connection is lost in a film translation. Filmed or photographed sex is everywhere-- but how often are other people doing it in front of you?

My point is simply that a successful adaptation is going to be a tough sell. If done right, it's the kind of film that could pull for an Oscar. Those keyed in on the theater scene know that many best picture nominees start out as plays a few years earlier, like this past year's Doubt and Frost/Nixon. I don't know very much about McG-- and the fact that his name is McG doesn't put me too much at ease. It seems that his career is built on three things: music videos, prime time teen soap operas, and action movies. IGN seemed to think that his experience working on OC might help him with this adaptation, but I'd have to say that it's a pretty big leap. A teenager may be a teenager, but Spring Awakening is a wonderful work of theater; the O.C. is a show no one will remember in twenty years. There is also a hell of difference between 19th century Germany and contemporary Orange County. I hope that his music video experience will help to shape the inner monologue aspect of the songs.

The biggest problem I have with Spring Awakening hitting the inattentive mainstream is it's likely going to become fodder for stores like Hot Topic. The musical deals with heavy subject matter, particularly sex, death, and suicide-- it's also very much geared towards teens. Unlike Sondhiem's Sweeney Todd, which somehow managed to capture a youthful audience in 2007, the songs are already built for a younger audience, thanks to Duncan Sheik. They're a little bit pop, a little bit rock, and little bit folk. Let me cut to the chase, I can see the legions of idiotic masses lining up already, and happily singing the songs in their car a week later. Spring Awakening shouldn't be the next emo musical, which it's likely to be pigeon-holed as, because it is anything but. The teens in the musical struggle with real problems, and unlike many of those who will latch on to it afterwards-- they fight instead of cry about it.

In short- I'm worried. It's tough adaptation with a director I have little faith in, and all set to be loosed as a wrist-cutters wet dream. I suggest you check out Spring Awakening before the movie inevitably comes out if you haven't already- you can take a look at the musical website, and listen to one of the songs above.

Free Books! I'm a Winner!

2009-04-13T23:38:00.007-04:00

About a week ago, I came across a nifty little website called Goodreads. Goodreads is a social networking site that is built around reading and literature. You can keep track of and post reviews of the books you've read, as well as those you're reading and want to read. It's similar to facebook's weRead application. In addition to that, you can also answer trivia questions submitted by other readers, and unlike the facebook application, these questions are organized much more appropriately (and aren't all about Harry Potter and Twilight!). As with other social networking sites you can find your friends and keep them informed of what you're doing by updating your status-- which also incorporates how far along you are in the book you're reading. Generally, it's a really nifty site.

I was keen on Goodreads anyway, but over the weekend I stumbled across another feature of the website (a little harder to find than the others). It was Goodread's giveaway page. On this page, publishers [and presumably individuals] are allowed to set up book giveaways, open to the goodreads community. A member simply clicks "Enter to Win" and fills out their information (name and address) for the chance to win a copy of whatever book listed they're interested in winning. The number of copies available varies depending on who is listing the giveaway, but seems to very from 1 to 50 with about 10 being the average. Readers have the opportunity to get some free books, and publishers get some word of mouth going on their new titles-- the fact that up to 1500 people enter to win your book doesn't hurt publicity either.

I wasn't very optimistic about winning anything, and therefore not too hot on entering to win any books but to my surprise, I recognized one of the titles up for grabs. It was Admission by Jean Hanff Korelitz-- a book I had seen a positive review for in Entertainment Weekly the week before. So with some trepidation, I joined the other 804 hopefuls for a free copy of the novel. I woke up at 7AM this morning, and had the pleasure of stating my day with an e-mail from Goodreads telling me I was one of the lucky 25 winners!

Now, I still have some concerns about the entire giveaway set up. After all, what's to stop a person from just listing some random book to get a bunch of personal information? This isn't to say I understand what they'd have to gain, but I'm a cynical person. Maybe they plan to send me countless sears ads and Martha Stuart catalogs. I did some googling and found a handful of publishers talking about these listings on their blogs, so at least a number of them are genuine. I feel pretty confident about the person who listed Admission, and I expect that I'll get my copy with no trouble at all but I still have that bit of doubt in me for safety's sake. You'll know if I got it if I post a review of Admission within the next two months or not.

Anyway, I just wanted to pass on some information on Goodreads. If you have no shame and don't mind collecting clutter then you might as well make yourself an account and enter to win all the listings. After all, they save your information. If you enter one, all you need to do from then on out is click "enter to win" two times, and agree to the terms and conditions. Pretty nice, right?

Required Reading & Great Expectations

2009-04-12T10:16:00.005-04:00

Somewhere in the midst of its many seasons, an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond was made in which Ray challenges the school board because he feels his daughter has too much homework. In actuality, he didn't want to go through all work required to help her it. As with sitcoms, a lesson was learned and things turned out just fine. However, in the course of the episode Ray is forced to admit to his mother that he never read Twain's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Doris Roberts' long-island accented response has stuck with me ever since: You never read Tom Sawyer?!

There are novels, both literary and not, that the greater society simply expects everyone to be familiar with. For the most part, these are novels that are taught in high school when the playing field is generally pretty level. Those that don't fall into this camp are usually those that became popular in a zeitgeisty wild fire. These books don't necessarily have to be well written. Valley of the Dolls, The Di Vinci Code, and newest of the bunch, Twilight, come to mind. Oprah certainly must play a part in this in our society as well. For a long time I believed Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez to a recent release. It turns out Oprah just threw it on her book club stacks and made it a best seller. It's actually from the 1985.

To be thrown into a conversation about a book you haven't read is one of the more embarrassing situations you can find yourself in-- but it's bound to happen at some point. Even the most prolific readers can't manage to knock out all the books that society expects them to have tackled (and in my experience they often avoid literary fiction for crappy genre fiction). The simple fact is, that society-- that broad general term-- dictates that a person read more than they can unless they're actively pursuing those particular novels, or perhaps have had the very ideal conditions. For some people this is a complete non-issue-- the results of that approach are here.

As a writer, particularly a writer interested in fiction, the feeling is compounded in me. The number of books I'm expected to have read is more than that of the average person-- and justifiably so-- but what this does is further aggravate and pester. There is, after all, only so much time in the day, in the month, and in the year. Between staying current, reading what you want, and reading what you should a person is bound to only manage a minimum in each category. Perhaps faster readers have an easier time, but I only managed to read a pathetic 19 novels in 2008-- only one of which was released that year. To make matters worse, all of this is to say nothing of Non-fiction, Graphic Novels, Poetry, and Drama.

Thinking on all of this made me decide to put a small list together of all the books society expects me to have read, and share my ten most embarrassing over sights. Not to delay the inevitable, here is the sum of my ignorance:

The Harry Potter Series by J.K. Rowling
The Lord of the Rings Series by J.R.R. Tolkien
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Moby Dick by Herman Melville
The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Slaughter-House Five by Kurt Vonnegut
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain

Damn you, Doris Roberts! There is it. Maybe it's not the most embarrassing line-up I could put together-- there were certainly notable omissions -- but it's a pretty bad none the less. What are the books you're most embarrassed to admit you haven't read?

Feeling Low [A Book Review]

2009-04-10T22:33:00.008-04:00

Lowboy

A novel by John Wray

Published March 2009

Everyone knows that the world is getting hotter; global warming is a problem for the ages but William Heller, a sixteen-year old schizophrenic from New York, sees things a bit differently. To stop global warming and save the world, Will believes he must cool down his own body. To cool down his body, Will needs the help of a girl, someone to help him release his overheating insides, and loose his virginity. Despite the seemingly light-hearted or comic nature of the plot's synopsis, John Wray's newest novel proves to be a sad, dark and perhaps even frightening experience.

As one begins to read through the pages of Wray's novel, there is an initial feeling of hesitancy in accepting the material as literary. The novel alternates its protagonists by chapter, an approach commonly found within work of genre fiction. It's a method used to spur the reader into reading faster, to compel them to read more chapters in a single reading period for the purpose of finding out what happens next sooner. Wray uses this method to his advantage. Chapters end at climactic moments only to switch to another character for the next ten to twenty pages before switching back. The added suspense this brings to the novel is a plus, but it's certainly not the only reason for this particular format. The novel deals with four main characters, William Heller, his mother Yda "Violet" Heller, his love interest Emily, and the detective responsible for finding him, Ali Lateef. Because of the nature of the characters, and the way in which their histories unfold, the novel absolutely must take this approach in order to succeed. As may be expected, not every answer can be found within the mind of a schizophrenic, and though some readers may find it nagging, using Violet and Lateef as narrators is absolutely essential to the completion of the picture.

At times this air of simple genre fiction persists given the mysterious circumstances which begin to unravel within the novel. In the briefest of moments, the novel can often stink of these undertones but they serve to meet the nature of the characters. Additionally, Wray is an underselling novelist that perhaps needed to infuse these elements in his novel to ensure printing of whatever he might want to do next. It is a book that in this regard is a mostly happy marriage between high and low brow fiction.

The novel is suspenseful, and easily keeps a readers attention, but at the time it slowly develops into a complex examination of the human consciousness, particularly an examination of the human consciousness burdened with the weight of mental disease. Wray writes William's thoughts as if they were his own. It is a consciousness that is flowing, logical in the way information is processed, and yet the thoughts are often incomplete to a reader but are accompanied by an understanding that they are complete to William Heller. The reader is never lost within the protagonists thoughts, they are never the muddy labyrinth one might expect them to be, even at William's lowest point in the novel. As impossible of a task as it seems, Wray has written a believable and navigable channel into a schizophrenic mind.

Almost as impressive is Wray's ability to turn William's seemingly cute quirks and shape them into frightening aspects of his mental illness. The most effective of these he manages to do within a single line.

Wray manipulates the reader in the same way a few of the protagonists are manipulated within the novel, and so when the narrative twists, and turns the reader finds themselves on unstable ground. The novel in itself is a checklist of positive features. It's protagonist's are captivating-- in William's case, often irresistibly likable. The plot is swift, and ever moving like the trains that make up much of the novel's setting. The thematic concerns are evasive but directly tied to William Heller-- and those which every person must consider. The novel is a force and the swift, jaw-dropping final paragraph will leave readers speechless. If the novel is truly a coming of age story, as many of the back cover accolades suggest-- then it is one of the most disturbed and captivating to have ever been written.

VERDICT: A-

Comic Review Wednesdays - Batman: Battle for the Cowl #2

2009-04-08T23:03:00.007-04:00

Batman: Battle of the Cowl #2 (of 3)

Written by Tony Daniel

Pencils by Tony Daniel

The appearance of a new gun-toting Batman, the resurgence of the Black Mask and rampant gang violence between Two-Face and Penguin's organizations has thrown Gotham into a violent maelstrom. Tim Drake and Dick Grayson, along with the rest of the network, struggle for footing in an ever-worsening situation.

Almost a year ago, with the release of the Dark Knight, there was a lot of discussion about what new Batman readers could pick up on the shelves to fulfill any jonesing they might develop because of the movie. This discussion was to some extent brought about because there were few accessible reader-friendly Batman comics at the time but also because Nolan's film was so unlike that which could be found in the comics. It depicted Batman's world as something that was not only dark, but viciously brutal. While Daniel's comic may have some of the familiar elements from events like No Man's Land, it also pulls inspiration from Nolan's most recent Batman film.

By pulling in Nolan as a source of inspiration, Daniel is crafting a comic that is exponentially more thrilling than many of the others that come to the shelf. This particular issue is filled with an immense amount of plot developments and twists that are nothing short of astounding. The problem being that the developments in comics are temporal, particularly those which happen to fall between issues. Nolan's Batman universe has an air of finality to it, while comics do not. This isn't to say that what Daniel has written can't be final, it simply feels improbable. Additional hope (or fear, if that's how the events take you) can be gleaned from DC editor Dan Didio, who said before the event began that it would fundamentally shake up the Batman universe. Though, the man is trying to sell a comic and his word should be taken lightly. The other, less significant downside to Daniel's source of inspiration is a lack of overarching (provocative, thoughtful) theme-- which is in no way essential to a comic but would have been further evidence of his influence from Nolan and greatly helped the whole. Regardless of the permanence of the events, the issue is a violent thrill-ride in a Nolan-eqsue vain-- which is certain to resonate with Batman newcomers.

Daniel still uses a large amount of captions, but the switch of narrator provides a greater interest to the whole, and they generally work more effectively. Also, Two-Face and Penguin finally make an appearance in Daniel's comic in this issue-- within the first two pages-- and are then dropped quickly without return. Between all that is going on in Gotham, it almost seems that Daniel has written himself into a situation as tight as the one he puts his characters into. Battle for the Cowl seems to be guaranteed to have some lasting effects simply because there is no way Daniel could write the conclusion to all of these events within a single issue-- whether he does or not will prove to be the metal of the finale.

RATING: 9 out of 10.

Quick, and brutal-- it has exactly the appeal that a layman might expect a comic to have. Daniel's comic seems as though it will have some interesting repercussions on Batman universe and has generally shaken off all of my previous misgivings. Issue 1 shouldn't be too difficult to find if you're interested in reading the whole.

Google Seeks to Adopt Seven Million Orphans

2009-04-05T21:44:00.005-04:00

Google, the massive Internet search engine corporation, offers a wide variety of tools for Internet users to utilize. In 2004, google introduced Google books, a handy tool that allowed readers to examine full, and partial texts online. For some time, Google has been trying to expand what it is doing with Google books, and a few days ago the New York Times did some additional reporting on Google's plans.

At its own expense, Google as been scanning in books from various libraries with the ultimate goal of creating a massive online library. The books Google is particularly interested in are those which are being called "Orphans"-- those which have been neglected by author or publisher and haven't seen a new printing in a very long time. This isn't to say that Google is interested in publishing books outside of the copy write hold-- quite the opposite. Google is interested in books that still have retaining copy write. Their plan is to endow themselves with 37% of the profit and advertising revenue, while the authors and publishers receive the rest. However, as Google moves ever closer to the court settlement to do this, voices of opposition begin to grow. They believe that Google will have a stranglehold monopoly, and the process will be as harmful as it is good. That is at least my understanding of their complaint.

Within the past few months, I have often been thinking about the mark of success as it is defined by legacy. I believe it is the belief of society that if a person has contributed to society significantly than their legacy is assured. However, the more I see of the literary world, the less convinced I am of the truth of this. For instance, in the nineteen eighties, author Rachel Ingalls published a novella entitled Mrs. Caliban which a few years later would be called the greatest novel since WWII. Ingalls' would-be classic is currently out of print like much of her work, and the poor woman doesn't even have a wikipedia for her troubles. Another example would be John Collier, a novelist who came highly recommended to me by an older professor. When I began to look into Collier, I noticed that only two of his works (His Monkey Wife, and Francies and Goodnights) were still in print. One of them printed by the New York Review of Books which is doing an admirable job at bringing vanishing classics back into print.*

For art's sake, as well as for my own as a writer, I certainly hope that Google's initiative includes works of fiction and creative non-fiction. They are, more than medical, theoretical, or historical texts which become dated, the most important texts to be preserved. This isn't because the history contained in these other texts isn't significant, or won't be helpful in research but because today's society moves at break-neck pace. With the time frame for copy-write laws ever expanding, these lesser known authors will slip into oblivion before they're able to be included in Google's standard application or the likes of Project Gutenberg. It could well be argued that this removal from public consciousness is a kind of artistic Darwinism but what is important to consider is that even less than exceptional artists contribute something to the world through their influence on others. For instance, Robert Mayer's 1977 novel Superfolks is said to have been a source of inspiration for the super-hero deconstructions that followed it. Regardless of the novel's own merit, it is a link in development and to let it fall from history is to encourage gaps in evolutionary history, to go back to Darwin.

Of the opponents of this initiative, who's position is never made clear by the NYT, I have to wonder what in their minds is so destructive about this. In essence, what is being described isn't dissimilar to programs like JSTOR or other archival resources. The sources included in the archive are paid for the material, and JSTOR is paid by the institutions that use the program. The argument that Google will monopolize the market seems foolish-- the article even mentions Microsoft's interest in similar set-ups. Writers' seem to have every opportunity to withdraw their books from the program if they wish to. So where exactly is the problem? Publishers and authors will be paid for a book they have neglected to draw money from for some time. A writers' work will endure, at least longer than it would if it were to simply fall out of print. Institutions will have access to an infinitely large collection of books, as will readers through them. I am normally very skeptical of any company spokesman who describes their activities as a win for all involved, but I truly cannot find the downside to this.

This is not to say that I'm for digitization. I believe that books are meant to be held, to be contemplated, and to be cherished (besides, a book erasing doesn't sound nearly as horrific as a book burning). I do believe however, that tapable resources and legacies are very important. Otherwise, I don't suppose I'd see much use in this. Preserving information, and preserving art is instrumental for a society to move into the future. Google is providing an avenue for society to move father ahead, and until the opposition can present some stronger evidence against the plan--Amen to them. Perhaps those who are complaining can read something on presenting a case through Google books.

*I cannot recommend any of these books myself save for Mrs. Caliban as it's the only one I've mentioned that I've had the opportunity to read. On that note, Caliban is a wonderful book and should be read by everyone.

Comic Review Wednesdays - Man-Bat #1

2009-04-02T20:33:00.009-04:00

Man-Bat #1 (of 1)

Written by Joe Harris

Art by Jim Calafiore

Gotham is in chaos, and Oracle has requested the help of every member of the Batman family (The Network). Jekyll-and-Hyde scientist Kirk Langstrom wakes to find his wife Francine gone, summoned by Oracle's call for help. The self-conscious Langstrom ventures in the Gotham night to find his wife, and help in whatever way his bestial counter-part can. He manages to find more than he bargained for. A battle for the cowl tie-in.

Stories are often made or broken based on the desires of the protagonist, and how those desires are portrayed to the audience. A character's want is how a reader, or viewer can relate to them. Most often, a character's desire is the vehicle which drives the story. Astonishingly, this is one of the aspects of storytelling in which Battle for the Cowl: Man-Bat fails horribly. It is not because Harris has failed to give Kirk Langstrom motivation, but because his motivation is scattered and contradictory. Langstrom is dealing with a failing marriage, presumably because of the effects and use of his Man-Bat serum. This would be understandable, but it seems that even Langstom himself doesn't believe in using the serum. At the very least he fears it. His motivations become even more convoluted when he seems hurt that he wasn't asked to aid Gotham. Langstrom obviously understands that he is an untamed force when transformed, and one that could quickly turn into an additional problem. Yet his hurt feelings prod him to drink the serum in order to play hero and "save" his wife (A member of the network explicitly asked to help) when he has no evidence that she is even in danger. Nothing in this issue logically calls for Langstrom to turn into Man-Bat, and therefore this issue is flawed at its core. Certainly, there is something wonderful about characters who make bad decisions because of flawed logic, but that isn't the case here. The motivations are simply contradictory, with great gaps of logic-- certainly not how a scientist of any variety should be portrayed. If Langstrom's marriage was suffering because of the Man-bat serum, why would he charge after his wife after ingesting it?

Perhaps even worse is the string of extraordinary coincidences that occur in the issue. Characters go places with no reason or explanation, a batman villain just appears out of no-where, and even worse, the major shift in the nature of Man-bat also occurs without any reason whatsoever. The "plot" of this issue is essentially a series of coincidental events, the probability of which would be astronomical.

Dialog balloons are oddly placed and confuse the reader. There are still several pages within which it is almost impossible to discern who is saying what. There are pages that wasted and could have been used to help connect the plot such as the first four pages. As mentioned above, Langstom's motivations are confusing and while the reader is told that his marriage is in trouble, the possibility of showing his marriage in trouble was a real one and omitted by the writer. It's impossible to care about Langstrom in this issue because of how clumsy the writing is (this also weakens the fight scenes) and the worst part of this issue is that if it had been written with some strength, it really could have been something worth reading. If we had seen Langstrom's marriage trouble, if we had a clear idea of what he really wants, if the villain hadn't been put in for no reason, and if the end had been as cerebral as I had mistakenly thought it was my first read through. It could have been good, and sometimes that's the biggest insult of all.

RATING: 2 out of 10

The concept had potential, but the issue is trash. Don't bother reading this unless you're really interested in getting the whole scope of Battle for the Cowl.

I apologise that this is day late, and that the review is a bit sloppy to boot. It'll be better next week! Don't forget to check the docket and let me know what you'd like to see reviewed!

Deceptive Tweets- Ghost writing's next step

2009-03-27T17:18:00.010-04:00

Ghost writing seems to have always played a role in the publishing world, or at least it has for a long time now. It's a job employed primarily by celebrities or politicians who don't have the time, interest, or ability to write their own memoirs or autobiographies. Even R.L. Stein, famed children's lit writer of the nineties, employed ghost writers in order to keep each of his book lines on a regular schedule. In short, Ghost writing isn't anything new, you can even find help wanted ads on craigslist calling for ghost writers. However, the New York Times posted an article on their website yesterday discussing celebrity twitter accounts, and the celebrities that don't use them.

The article gives several examples of celebrities who employ someone to, or simply have some else update their twitter accounts for them. Specifically, they make reference to rapper 50 Cent, and former-trainwreck-currently-singer Britney Spears. The article also discusses athletes such as Lance Armstrong, and Shaquille O'Neal who update their accounts themselves. Of ghost written tweets O'Neal said "If I am going to speak, it will come from me.... It's 140 characters... If you need a ghostwriter for that, I feel sorry for you." His opinion is one I happen to share.

Ghost writing as a practice is morally problematic no matter what the situation happens to be. In the case of autobiographies, or memoirs, the reader is purchasing a product in the hopes of dispelling the smoke and mirrors of celebrity and getting a true, earnest look at the life and experiences of the billed celebrity writer. Celebrity in this case referring to any high profile figure. It's rather insulting then that a personal form of writing intended to be honest can and is used as a marketing tool. By employing a ghost writer in this fashion, the product's intent is voided and the reader is cheated. Even if the ghost writer is an honest translator of the person's life, it still lacks the personal element that separates these forms of writing from others. While this is a disingenuous, and can even be considered despicable practice, it isn't without some justification and benefit. While no celebrity should sign a book deal knowing they have no intent to write their own book, it's likely that a few find such an arduous task more daunting than they had previously thought once the work begins. While unfortunate, at least in this instance hiring a ghost writer to complete the contract is understandable. The benefit is rather obvious-- it employs an otherwise jobless writer. While they may not get credit for the work, they are at least fed for a few months.

Ghost writing for Twitter is a sin far more shameful, the only aspect less offensive is that a reader didn't unload twenty-five dollars to read it. Online friend services are intended to be used as a way for someone to connect with others. Like a form of personal writing, celebrities have the ability to regain independence from their image and connect with those who support them by utilizing these online services. When used by a celebrity for their intended purpose, it's a win-win for both the celebrity and fan alike. The celebrity is allowed to humanize themselves, while the fan is allowed a glimpse into their life. It's better for both involved. However, a ghost written twitter has a completely opposite effect. Consider the following, from the above NY Times article, spoken by a former consultant for Britney Spears;

"'It's O.K. to tweet for a brand,' he said, remarking how common it is for companies to have Twitter accounts, 'but not O.K. for a celebrity. But the truth is, they are a brand. What they are to the public is not always what they are behind the curtain. If the manager knows that better than the star, then they should do it.'"

Ignoring the fact that the final point this man makes would be untruthful at best, and libel at worst- It turns what should be an honest, direct line of communication into something deceptive, greedy, and something entirely more damaging than whatever a celebrity might disclose of their personal life. I'm referring specifically to the celebrity as a brand. A person doesn't have to look further than celebrities such as Rock Hudson-- the epitome of masculinity in mid-century America and a forcibly closeted homosexual for his entire life. Even when Hudson was diagnosed with HIV, it was released to the public as liver cancer. If that isn't enough, consider Rita Hayworth. Her on screen image was one of a sexual temptress, and she lived much of her life in Hollywood glamor, but in truth she wanted nothing more than to be happily married and with her family. To discuss Marilyn Monroe's troubled life and unfortunate suicide would be overkill. On top of all of that, it is impossible to ignore the sad irony in the fact that this blurb comes from a former brand manager for Britney Spears-- a celebrity who could have used transparency to great advantage when she was being hounded relentlessly by the media. Public sympathy could have been easily won for her if her absurd decisions had been accompanied by some insight into her life or mindset. Supporting 'the brand' does not allow celebrities to live like normal people, and the fact that a celebrity is a person it what separates them from the companies that have twitters. If Pepsi twitters about something, it's clear that the words don't belong to the actual soda, but if Spears or 50 Cent post a tweet, there is a justified expectation that the words are theirs.

All of this is to say nothing of the absolute ridiculousness of the fact that these celebrities can't manage to write their own pathetically pithy comments on their day to day events. It can't be argued that writing their own comments is destructive to their image. If it were, Aston Kutcher would have been out of the public eye as soon as people had some idea of how much of an arrogant airhead he was. Unlike the autobiography or memoir, writing twitter statuses isn't a difficult task.

All of this brings me back to my original point: Ghost writing is never a good thing. It removes all the intent behind writing a memoir or autobiography. If the writer is not connecting on a personal level with the reader than the work may as well not exist. The same can be said for faux tweets. The benefit of these formats for celebrities is that they are allowed to show themselves for who they are, and dispel the brand. To support 'the brand' using these mediums is commercialistic and insulting. Writing-- be it a novel, memoir, blog or tweet-- is about honesty and we'd all be a bit better served if someone manged to exorcise the ghosts.

Comic Review Wednesdays - Ms. Marvel #37

2009-03-25T19:40:00.007-04:00

Ms. Marvel #37

Written by Brian Reed

Pencils by Patrick Ouiffe

Ms. Marvel has been holding back her powers for some time because of the destructive effect they have begun to have on her. Face to face with the super-powered Ghazi Rashid, and enraged by her returning memories Carol lets loose despite herself. The result is the final issue of the three part "Death of Ms. Marvel" story arc. Note: This review does contain spoilers as it would be impossible to address several problems without them.

The death of Ms. Marvel has been something of an interesting beast. Particularly because I've been reading this title since its first year, and I'm also a follower of Reed's message board and website. Even without the "insider" kind of information that I've found on Reed's board, it seems like it would be blatantly apparent that Reed didn't intend for Carol to die until Dark Reign was panned out. Though, he does try very hard to tie up as many of his plot lines as possible in this story, it seems rather forced and used more as a means to end. Reed has been notoriously bad about following things through, because after all, the upcoming protagonist change is the titles third direction change since the titles inception less than forty issues ago. Reed's waning attention span has been something of a problem for the comic as whole, and his attempt to unify several events in Carol's final stand off is hard to swallow because it was never intended to end here.

The forced nature of the story aside, the crux of it should, naturally, be the promised death of the title's protagonist. One of the biggest problems surrounding this is a lack of belief in Carol's actual death. It was publicized before its occurrence which tends not to be the case when a character is actually intended to bite the dust for good (see Captain America and Wasp). There is also a generally transitory feel to Dark Reign because it seems clear that the status quo is bound to change within three years. Moonstone certainly won't be carrying the title of Ms. Marvel when she's not employed by Osborn to do so-- so naturally, the real Ms. Marvel seems destined to return.

The argument is further enforced by the uneventful nature of Ms. Marvel's death. Instead of giving her a "best of the best" moment to highlight how the character has changed, and to take her out on a high note, Reed chooses instead to have her barely obtain victory, fly into the sky and seemingly explode. The ambiguity of the death certainly seems to show that she will be back, and soon. The question then becomes why not give her a significant moment regardless? It seems as a writer, Reed should be interested in covering his trail not only in interviews where he asserts Ms. Mavel's death, but also in the actual comic. If her death was befitting of the character, which it certainly is not in this issue, than readers would be further thrown into doubt as to the possibility of her return-- with or without an ambiguous death. Perhaps Reed has a reason why he neglected to infuse her death with emotional impact but it seems that if he did it wouldn't be good enough to justify her final goodbye. An emotional scene that did Carol justice, and proved her to be the best of the best, would have suited both her return or non-return better than what Reed has written.

The remainder of the issue deals with tying up Rick Mason and Rossi's story, as well as the actual plot line of the comic. Both Rossi and Mason seem to suffer from the same problems-- huge questions of why and how. Without getting into it extensively, the motivations of both characters are dubious, and it's insulting given how much of a factor Rossi is in this story. This scene also has very bad action film kind of tone to it by asking the reader to accept huge unexplained, and unexplored ideas.

Finally, a quick mention of Ouiffe's pencils. The art in Ms. Marvel has been a mixed bag since the beginning of the series-- but sadly in this issue, arguably the most important in the series thus far, the pencils are absolutely awful. Ouiffe's characters tend to be oddly elongated, and his binary is simply strange looking-- very unfortunate as her appearance throws the reader out of the story a mere two pages or so from Ms. Marvel's supposed death. There is likely good reason that his name hasn't come to my attention before. It's also difficult to distinguish Mason from Rossi, which makes the first few pages very hard to read.

It's not without regret that Carol Danvers slips into the cold dark night. Ms. Marvel has been an uneven but overall enjoyable read, and it's with reluctance that I continue to read with Karla as the protagonist. Reed only has a few months to win me over. Sadly, goodbye must be said to the one true marvelous Ms. Marvel. All I have managed to do is shake my head sadly as think about the undeserving end the character received.

RATING: 4 out of 10

With little emotional resonance, and bad artwork it's very difficult to appreciate the issue-- although the very end does seem to have some promise. If you're interested in Ms. Marvel, or Dark Reign the next issue is the primere time to hop on board as Osborn's Ms. Marvel, the former Moonstone will be taking up the title.

Side-note: Both Battle for the Cowl: Commissioner Gordon and Mighty Avengers #23 were wonderful this week. I would have liked to review a good book this week but Ms. Marvel's death seemed to warrant the week.

DC Announces Additional Co-features

2009-03-21T15:33:00.007-04:00

The price of several comics, as well as all new mini-series and one-shots, at Marvel recently rose to 3.99-- A full dollar more than the price of comics for the past half-decade or so. With Marvel's announcement, it seemed inevitable that DC comics would follow suit and raise prices on some of its titles as well. DC has indeed announced a price hike, but not without a pleasant twist involved. All DC titles to have a 3.99 price tag will be accompanied with additional pages featuring a (related) character currently unable to sustain a title. The first announcements were made a few weeks ago and included Metal Men to appear with the upcoming Doom Patrol, Blue Beetle to appear in Booster Gold, and Ravager to appear in Teen Titans.

Earlier today, the June solicitations for the Batman and Green Lantern titles were released early [full solicitations release the last Monday of the month]. Among the news, it was also announced that Manhunter would be co-featured in Batman: Streets of Gotham, and The Question would be co-featured in Detective Comics!

Those who know me are aware that I've been championing for a title for Renee Montoya's Question for some time. It would have given DC their first LGBT protagonist in an ongoing (Wildstorm did have a gay character but it was quickly cancelled, not triumphed, and most importantly not under a DC billing). When it was announced that Batwoman would be taking up Detective Comics it was both great, and disappointing news. Great in the sense that DC was fully embracing a LGBT character by delivering on an ongoing (The original flag ship title to boot!) but disappointing in that it was a character who has seen little use until this time (contrasted to Montoya who had held the spot-light more than once). Both O'Neil's run on the Question from the 80s, and Gotham Central are titles I'm reading in graphic novel form-- both of which are fantastic-- and that's why I had been hoping for a new Question series. I was ecstatic when I found out that DC would be adding Question to a series I already had every intention on picking up.

DC's new buissness model is something of genius. First and foremost, it's not simply ripping money out of the hands of its readers like Marvel intends to do. While Marvel had a difficult few quarters early in the year, it managed to close on quite the high. It was a bit of unfortunate timing as the news of increased prices came only a few weeks before Marvel's financial triumph. Additionally, as of February 2009, Marvel controled 47% of the American comic market versus DC's 28%. Likely what has saved DC from having to hike prices first is the fact that they're a subsidiary of Warner Brothers while Marvel is an independent company. All that is a bit of a tangent, but the point is that DC is making an attempt to keep readers contented despite rising costs. To boot, the titles going up in price are already low-selling titles which means that DC is simply trying to make cost and keep them on the shelves (This is not the case with Marvel).

Not only does this seem to be a genuine attempt at easing readers into the 3.99 era, and to keep comics on shelves, but it also keeps good characters out of obscurity. The characters that have been chosen to have co-features are all character that have proved that they have a readership in the past, but an unfortunately small sect. Montoya pre-Question was one of the primary draws to Gotham Central, while Blue Beetle and Manhunter sustained their own titles for several years. These are interesting, good characters with a great deal of potential mileage, and it's fantastic that DC isn't dropping them completely.

It's also good news for comic writers and artists-- simply, more comic equates to more potential work. DC could garner a great of respect if they were willing to do 8-page shorts, or original features to stand beside their own comics. There is, of course, a down-side to everything. Certain fans will be unwilling to pay an additional dollar for certain comics, and an 8-page feature (An optimistic guess) might not be enough to draw in the readers of the co-featured characters. Generally though, I feel this is the best available option a company has. Those who don't grab on when DC has it's arm outstretched are likely blinded to the realities of the world around us. Comics will universally go up in price. Co-featured characters won't sustain a title on their own. It's the way things are, and those who are unhappy about it will likely stay unhappy or have to simply stop reading.

The 3.99 price hike isn't going to be pretty however you look at it, but they're making a strong showing. It's also generally good news for comics like Jonah Hex, Simon Dark or Secret Six, who are unfortunately dying from a slow bleed despite their quality. DC deserves a round of applause for doing the best they can for both their creative teams, and their readers.