You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.75 AVERAGE
3.75 AVERAGE
Wow! This was incredible! This is exactly want to read! I loved Thumbelina, Alice in Wonderland, Ants, A Bugs Life, The Minpins, The Borrowers, dollhouses...basically anything small and tiny, mini-worlds. So I couldn't resist picking up this graphic novel.
It's so good. The pace is amazingly fast and the story is vivid, original, and compelling. I can't wait to read more from Vehlmann, and more from the illustrating duo Kascoet. Absolutely love the Drawn & Quarterly graphic novel publishing house - everything they put out is great.
Highly recommended for adults who love picture books!
It's so good. The pace is amazingly fast and the story is vivid, original, and compelling. I can't wait to read more from Vehlmann, and more from the illustrating duo Kascoet. Absolutely love the Drawn & Quarterly graphic novel publishing house - everything they put out is great.
Highly recommended for adults who love picture books!
I read this twice in order to really understand the scenes that were playing out, and was incredibly impressed by how horrific it managed to be
This has a nice juxtaposition between the art style and actual content of the story. I like stories with fairy creatures, whether they take the dark route or not. This one takes the dark route, of course. It is bingeable and a fun read for the start of October.
Well, that was...wild. Possibly a lot more allegorical than I anticipated (don’t expect a fully revealed plot).
mmmkay, this is something else, people.
It's a sweet little story that snaps your head off at the end.
It's a disarmingly charming world that flips into some very dark places.
It's definitely not for kids.
These cute little beings are horrifying to each other. The forest is a brutal place. You can make your home in the most repugnant locations. Just because something is adorable does not mean it is not capable of the worst.
The execution is beautiful - it really goes well with the mood of the piece. The more I think about this, the more I respect it.
Unique.
It's a sweet little story that snaps your head off at the end.
It's a disarmingly charming world that flips into some very dark places.
It's definitely not for kids.
These cute little beings are horrifying to each other. The forest is a brutal place. You can make your home in the most repugnant locations. Just because something is adorable does not mean it is not capable of the worst.
The execution is beautiful - it really goes well with the mood of the piece. The more I think about this, the more I respect it.
Unique.
I love dark fairytales so I had to pick this one up, but I was really let down by it. While it did have beautiful illustrations it was severely lacking in plot and dialogue. Just a series of horrifying events with a completely unsatisfying ending.
SUUUUUUPER fucked up. If you don't like to read something that's really super fucked up, I would definitely pass on this one.
If you're someone who likes to see little elf people crawl out of a corpse of a dead girl, who seems to have been horrifically murdered, and be picked off one by one by the horrors of the natural world: Welcome, friend!
I can see where some people are coming from in comparing this book to a fairy tale or maybe an anti fairy tale, but it really seemed more like just a messed up tale of death and doom. Probably most disturbing is the fact that almost none of the characters seem to give a hot damn when other characters are killed. I think that's probably why it comes off so weird and creepy.
It's probably best compared to something like Pan's Labyrinth. Things are beautiful and fairy tale like, and then some dude is getting his face smashed in brutal fashion.
Why did I like it?
That's kind of a messed up question, I suppose.
For me, I liked the transgressiveness of it. This definitely harkened back to the days when the world thought all comics were for kids and comic books were trying pretty hard to cast off that assumption. I see cute little people on the cover and don't assume they're going to be in a story that crosses David The Gnome with Saw.
I also like a story devoid of aspirational characters. It's very rare.
We just had a movie night at the library, and we showed Steve Jobs, the Aaron Sorkin movie. And man, people did not enjoy it, and based on their comments, I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Steve Jobs is depicted as a raging asshole. In the discussion after the movie, people were very uncomfortable with the question of whether or not a person can be wildly successful and a good person. Uncomfortable with the very posed question, "Does it require someone be a jerk to get things done and make a 'dent in the universe?'"
All in attendance answered No, but I don't know that they really thought it through.
It's a pretty interesting question because, without specifics, I would always say, "Sure, it's possible to be nice and a huge success." But when I think about specific people, it's different. I kinda don't think Steve Jobs was capable of doing it. I don't think Axl Rose was. There are contrary examples, of course, of nice people who also made a big impact. And maybe it's a pessimistic view that assholes have the opportunity to make a bigger impact.
Which isn't a slam on them, even though I just called them assholes. Steve Jobs was a jerk to a lot of people, but on the other hand, it's hard for me to see his impact on the world as a net negative. I fucking love my iPod more than many people love their children. I promise you this is true.
So if Steve Jobs was a jerk to those around him, but his jerkiness allowed him to do things that made life better for a lot of people, is that a "bad" life? I don't know. But it's impossible to say he didn't have an impact, which was his goal.
And I understand there's a lot more to Jobs, so feel free to slot in whichever jerk genius you'd like if what I'm saying is getting caught up in your brain because of specifics about the man.
When I think about someone like Jobs, I think about this David Sedaris essay where he was talking about some advice he got. The advice was that you have to think about your life like a stovetop. You're making dinner, and you've got 4 burners, max. Those 4 burners are friends, family, career, personal happiness. And in order to really do a good job, it's hard to make a 4-burner meal. Trust me, as someone who has cooked on 4 burners a few times and ALWAYS burned something in the process, the results are never as good as the results that come when you only need a couple burners. In the analogy, what this advice-giver was saying is that it's hard to have good relationships with friends, family, a good career, and to do the other things that are personally fulfilling. It's a lot easier if you can pick 3, and if you want to be really successful in one area or another, if you can pick 2.
I think there are characters in history that definitely picked fewer burners, whether it was conscious or not. And I suppose there's a potential fallacy here because there are plenty of people who are deadbeat dads AND have lousy careers. But when I think about it, I think about a lot of people who weren't so hot in one or more of the personal areas, but then excelled in the areas in which they were focused.
All this to say, I really really enjoy stories with non-aspirational characters. There are not nearly enough of them, especially considering the interesting questions their very existence brings up.
If you're someone who likes to see little elf people crawl out of a corpse of a dead girl, who seems to have been horrifically murdered, and be picked off one by one by the horrors of the natural world: Welcome, friend!
I can see where some people are coming from in comparing this book to a fairy tale or maybe an anti fairy tale, but it really seemed more like just a messed up tale of death and doom. Probably most disturbing is the fact that almost none of the characters seem to give a hot damn when other characters are killed. I think that's probably why it comes off so weird and creepy.
It's probably best compared to something like Pan's Labyrinth. Things are beautiful and fairy tale like, and then some dude is getting his face smashed in brutal fashion.
Why did I like it?
That's kind of a messed up question, I suppose.
For me, I liked the transgressiveness of it. This definitely harkened back to the days when the world thought all comics were for kids and comic books were trying pretty hard to cast off that assumption. I see cute little people on the cover and don't assume they're going to be in a story that crosses David The Gnome with Saw.
I also like a story devoid of aspirational characters. It's very rare.
We just had a movie night at the library, and we showed Steve Jobs, the Aaron Sorkin movie. And man, people did not enjoy it, and based on their comments, I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Steve Jobs is depicted as a raging asshole. In the discussion after the movie, people were very uncomfortable with the question of whether or not a person can be wildly successful and a good person. Uncomfortable with the very posed question, "Does it require someone be a jerk to get things done and make a 'dent in the universe?'"
All in attendance answered No, but I don't know that they really thought it through.
It's a pretty interesting question because, without specifics, I would always say, "Sure, it's possible to be nice and a huge success." But when I think about specific people, it's different. I kinda don't think Steve Jobs was capable of doing it. I don't think Axl Rose was. There are contrary examples, of course, of nice people who also made a big impact. And maybe it's a pessimistic view that assholes have the opportunity to make a bigger impact.
Which isn't a slam on them, even though I just called them assholes. Steve Jobs was a jerk to a lot of people, but on the other hand, it's hard for me to see his impact on the world as a net negative. I fucking love my iPod more than many people love their children. I promise you this is true.
So if Steve Jobs was a jerk to those around him, but his jerkiness allowed him to do things that made life better for a lot of people, is that a "bad" life? I don't know. But it's impossible to say he didn't have an impact, which was his goal.
And I understand there's a lot more to Jobs, so feel free to slot in whichever jerk genius you'd like if what I'm saying is getting caught up in your brain because of specifics about the man.
When I think about someone like Jobs, I think about this David Sedaris essay where he was talking about some advice he got. The advice was that you have to think about your life like a stovetop. You're making dinner, and you've got 4 burners, max. Those 4 burners are friends, family, career, personal happiness. And in order to really do a good job, it's hard to make a 4-burner meal. Trust me, as someone who has cooked on 4 burners a few times and ALWAYS burned something in the process, the results are never as good as the results that come when you only need a couple burners. In the analogy, what this advice-giver was saying is that it's hard to have good relationships with friends, family, a good career, and to do the other things that are personally fulfilling. It's a lot easier if you can pick 3, and if you want to be really successful in one area or another, if you can pick 2.
I think there are characters in history that definitely picked fewer burners, whether it was conscious or not. And I suppose there's a potential fallacy here because there are plenty of people who are deadbeat dads AND have lousy careers. But when I think about it, I think about a lot of people who weren't so hot in one or more of the personal areas, but then excelled in the areas in which they were focused.
All this to say, I really really enjoy stories with non-aspirational characters. There are not nearly enough of them, especially considering the interesting questions their very existence brings up.
Väga hea, väga jube, väga sydamlik (viimased kaks vahelduvad pildist pilti). Väga kurb.