Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.84 AVERAGE
3.84 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I really enjoyed reading this graphic novel and now I can't wait to read the New York Trilogy by Paul Auster.
challenging
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
4.5 rounded up. At its best, this book will envelop you. Mazzucchelli puts on a black and white masterclass. If you like literary fiction, let this one skip ahead a few places in your queue.
I had to think again and again, if this actually works out much better as a graphic novel.
I think this is more of a graphic novel than a comic book, but I am so not creating separate shelves for graphic novels and comics, so suck it, invisible fairy advocates for a divide between high art and low entertainment. Anyway Art Spiegelman goes on a bit of a spiel in his introduction to this about graphic novels and how the term is a silly bid for respectability for books with pictures in, so I don't think he'd object.
I read this before I read the text-only version, because a) it wouldn't take as long as reading a whole book, and so would not make me feel guilty about reading instead of working, and b) in light of what I knew of the tastes of the giver (who also gave me The New York Trilogy), I figured a comic book would be more painless to get through if it turned out to be the kind of medium-over-message thing I generally don't enjoy.
I'm not sure reading this first turned out to be the right thing to do. I ended up very impressed with both this and the text-only version of the story, but I like this version better. I think Peter Stillman comes off as a lot creepier and more pathetic in the comic than in the novella, but I can't tell if I think this because I read the comic first, so the effect was diluted by the time I got to the novella. I do think the Peter Stillman monologue is a lot more effective with the pictures added in; reading it and then comparing the scene in the graphic novel with the scene in the novella was really one of those "oh wow, possibilities of the medium!" moments.
Anyway, it is great. I coulda done with more of a resolution, but I get that this is not that kind of book that gives you resolutions. I like that it is about words. I'm not sure what to think about Paul Auster being in it. It is very pointedly clever, which may or may not be why I think of it as being very much a Dude Book -- by which I do not mean that only dudes would want to read it or that the book is solely concerned with dudes, but that it just, um, well, it's a dude book. Possibly it's the whole thing where Auster is taking off the tropes of detective noir. Also the odd bit in the graphic novel where Virginia Stillman is shown naked in (presumably) Quinn's imagination for one panel. That strikes me as a very dude thing to do in a book -- I can't imagine many female writers who would've put in something like that.
I read this before I read the text-only version, because a) it wouldn't take as long as reading a whole book, and so would not make me feel guilty about reading instead of working, and b) in light of what I knew of the tastes of the giver (who also gave me The New York Trilogy), I figured a comic book would be more painless to get through if it turned out to be the kind of medium-over-message thing I generally don't enjoy.
I'm not sure reading this first turned out to be the right thing to do. I ended up very impressed with both this and the text-only version of the story, but I like this version better. I think Peter Stillman comes off as a lot creepier and more pathetic in the comic than in the novella, but I can't tell if I think this because I read the comic first, so the effect was diluted by the time I got to the novella. I do think the Peter Stillman monologue is a lot more effective with the pictures added in; reading it and then comparing the scene in the graphic novel with the scene in the novella was really one of those "oh wow, possibilities of the medium!" moments.
Anyway, it is great. I coulda done with more of a resolution, but I get that this is not that kind of book that gives you resolutions. I like that it is about words. I'm not sure what to think about Paul Auster being in it. It is very pointedly clever, which may or may not be why I think of it as being very much a Dude Book -- by which I do not mean that only dudes would want to read it or that the book is solely concerned with dudes, but that it just, um, well, it's a dude book. Possibly it's the whole thing where Auster is taking off the tropes of detective noir. Also the odd bit in the graphic novel where Virginia Stillman is shown naked in (presumably) Quinn's imagination for one panel. That strikes me as a very dude thing to do in a book -- I can't imagine many female writers who would've put in something like that.
I just read this is one sitting...I'm honestly not trying to brag - it's a really short book. I haven't read the original novel, so I can't say how it compares, but I loved this graphic adaptation. The drawings are so abstract but ground the story at the same time. There is a great deal of character development for such a short book, and the images perfectly reflect the fears, goals, and reservations of all the characters. I am looking forward to reading Paul Auster's novel and the rest of the New York Trilogy. I've recommended this to one of my friends who is a big Auster fan but would otherwise never pick up a graphic novel and she was intrigued. I hope more publishers push for graphic adaptations of contemporary literature, as it's a great way to introduce graphic novels to those who have previously passed up the genre.
adventurous
mysterious
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix