JackFoster

December 15, 2009 10:56 am

Hello Do the words "HERALD of GALACTUS" mean anythingto you people? Everyone here who's been a Herald of Galactus raise their hand. Jonah Hex? No? Didn't think so. C'mon, she fought squared off against Juggernaut. Alone! I think she can handle Jonah I-can't-believe-I'm-even-still-in-continuity Hex.

September 18, 2009 11:16 am Can i be the lone dissenter? I think AP is a really fascinating book, it's long in a way comics usually don't get to be and certainly Mr. Mazzuccelli has masterful eye for design but I have to say I found the art a little frustrating. he has this reductionist approach reminds me a lot of Chris Ware after the Jimmy Corrigan stuff. I get that these are experiments in cartooning theory but I guess knowing what an amazing illustrator Mr. Mazzuccelli has proven to be in the past, it's kind of like when a great writer just improvises, you feel a little like you're left expecting a little more. Also, I feel like there are a lot of Acme Novelty Library touches and while it's unfair to say that anyone who adds a "AND . . ." or "STILL" to their text is copying but I feel like on the same token people are very quick to point out when another artist like Greg Land is 'swiping' from another artist. I feel it indicates that while Mr. Mazzuccelli is definitely a strong storyteller he does at times struggle with is own direction. Most of all while the narrative at the heart of AP is really strong, there are some problems that seem a little difficult to reconcile. The two Asterios (not his twin but the early A in flashback and the later A on the road) seem disconnected and while I admire the DIY spirit of learning to put together a car engine in an afternoon my larger objection is that the roll up your sleeves attitude of the second Asterios bears no resemblance to the petulant 'theoretical architect'. I also get it that we are observing a man who is undergoing a transformation but I think particularly with this kind of story to see A and C and not show the inbetween is in attentive, do you see what I mean? I feel like, being critical of this book, people accuse you of being churlish or not getting it, I'm a graphic designer and an illustrator, I spent several years studying art theory, I did not feel like this book was over my head, I do however believe that if we are going to mature as a medium we have to be critical as well as welcoming of work that is sophisticated and reaches for more. When I hear people say that he has raised the bar or changed the game, I really struggle. I feel like if you're really going to raise the bar, show me something I haven't seen, I feel like this is just an execution of tropes I've seen elsewhere (although very solidly executed). To make a movie metaphor, It's a lot like a Tarantino film, dazzlingly executed for sure, but built on the backs of a lot of work that has come before and at times a little too charmed with its own precociousness. Get what I'm saying?