Way too derivative and meandering. I think Scott Snyder is an okay writer, but he's nowhere near A-list for me. I find too many flaws and annoying tics in his work. He gives WAY too much text-box "trivia" in every issue--little of which is presented smoothly, and most of which is irrelevant to the plot. I enjoyed his Detective Comics run, but felt it was plagued by far too many tangential, factoid-littered musings about Dick Grayson's days in the circus. If Tony Daniel had written those passages, everyone would be complaining about "boring exposition" and calling the writing "way too wordy". But Scott Snyder is the current golden boy with a lot of hype around him, so any indulgence on his part is looked upon with complete acceptance by those in the "What's hot in comics?" group-think. Seriously. If Chris Claremont wrote some of these text boxes, many reviewers would be groaning. Because we're taught to be annoyed when Claremont gets wordy. But we're also taught to find anything that Scot Snyder does to be really interesting. So Scot Snyder can go on long pointless tangents without getting any flack. Sorry, but this is how I feel. The anecdote in this issue about Alec Holland in his father's flower shop? The idea that flowers are "screaming" as they're being cut? How trite. The long tangent about Alec telling his boss (co-worker?) to wrap cabbage around his leg? Sure, it reveals something about Alec's character, but it's presented in a very clunky way. The moment Snyder started going down that road, I thought "Here we go again. Let's see what 'fascinating' bit of trivia Scott Snyder looked up on wikipedia this week..." Same with the factoid about how wood rots. How can anyone honestly find these bits of trivia relevant or interesting? Are people just pretending they're interesting because we're conditioned to approve of anything Scott Snyder does in 2011? These extended factoid-sequences only apply to the plot very, very tangentially. They don't even really work thematically (because what metaphorical "wood" is actually rotting?). We're talking about wood rotting. What's next? Seventeen text boxes about paint drying? The bit about "violence" in the plant kingdom WAS thematically on-target, and I give Snyder some props for that. But, again, the material is presented in a fairly pedantic way, with Alex Holland suddenly playing schoolmaster to Superman. It's also just ONE good bit of trivia amongst a forest (pardon the pun) of pointless trivia. If Snyder's "batting average" of what constitutes interesting on-message trivia is only like .200, I'd rather he just STOP THE TRIVIA altogether. What's worse, the antagonistic forces in this issue are completely derivative of the Alan Moore run. People with their heads twisted backwards? Yeah, there was an Alan Moore Swamp Thing villain just like that. The motif of swarming flies of evil? Yeah, Alan Moore did that in another of his Swamp Thing stories. A mysterious, widespread existential threat about nature/evil revolting? YUP, the big centerpiece storyline of the Alan Moore run had exactly that premise. So the metaphysical "villain" of Scott Snyder's first issue is actually a combination of three leitmotifs from Alan Moore's run, all put together. Some may call that homage, but it goes beyond homage, in my opinion. It's just derivative. It's familiar in a bad way. There's no real invention here. This isn't like Alan Moore revamping the character. This isn't like Grant Morrison bringing out the best in an old property like Animal Man. This isn't Chris Claremont taking the X-Men places they've never gone. This isn't Frank Miller remodeling Batman and tweaking his attitude. This isn't reinvention. This is simply Scott Snyder retracing old Alan Moore stories, except now Alec Holland is really there. I have to assume that the people who really love this issue either haven't read the Alan Moore run, or else they've read it but (in our hyper-distracted age) they've forgotten what was original about it. That said, it's not that I "disapprove" of this comic. If I was in charge of DC, I'd say "Sure, put it out there." It's a competent comic. Combined with Paquette's artwork (he draws really cool looking plants), it's a "good" comic overall. And Snyder is an okay writer OVERALL (the pacing is good; what he's putting Alec through psychologically is good). But this is WAY too derivative, unoriginal and wordy for me to go along with the group and say that this is anywhere near "greatness". This is not the sort of thing (like the Alan Moore run) that will actually inspire many great writers down the road. This is just a repackaging of a better writer's work, for an audience that either doesn't realize or doesn't remember that there's a far better version of this already out there. A few times this past week I've heard Snyder's wordiness justified because Alan Moore was wordy in his Swamp Thing comics. Well, Shakespeare was wordy too. That doesn't mean all wordiness is good. Compare the text boxes Alan Moore wrote to the text boxes Scott Snyder writes. Moore's were like dark poetry. They were totally original from a psychological standpoint; comics had seen that before. Scott Snyder's are like some annoying guy at a party telling you what he learned by watching Bill Nye The Science Guy clips on YouTube. Story: 2 Art (since I'm sure the site is going to mess this up): 4