Take a photo of a barcode or cover
the_scrivener_named_bartleby's Reviews (139)
A cozy callback to text-based adventure games. Homestuck is what Andrew Hussie is known for, and all those characters definitely hold a place in my heart, but this just has a lot of "forum adventure" charm while still being fairly silly and having things like Ben Stiller or candy corn serve a very vital function in the story. The art is simple but charming, and there are definitely moments where it really shines and gets unexpectedly intricate. There's a definite disservice in not having the gifs to convey the story (the author/editor chose to put the frames individually, which I am not sure was an ideal solution) and I'm not sure if it was the best idea to cut this up into so many volumes where one could have sufficed, honestly.
I read this a few summers ago. I've played the first game, I watched the first season of the Netflix series, and to be completely honest, this is the best expression of all those stories to date, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Those do spoil you a bit, however, in having you think there will be more Polish or Slavic mythos represented (though this is not a flaw I am counting against the book.)
If you read this in Polish as a bilingual, fair warning: It is fairly difficult and you will need Google Translate here and there. It is my first language and I consider myself fluent (though I am more fluent in English at this point) but it's likely that the time this was written combined with some medieval concepts make this a bit more difficult to read.
The short stories are very memorable and charming. They have the style of Grimm's fairy tales, where the characters, though fantastical, have very dark origins or motivations. This is just a matter of taste, but with the characters consistently appearing and reappearing (especially the ever-charming Jaskier/Dandelion) I would prefer to read a more developed Sword & Sorcery drama like Game of Thrones or Wheel of Time in this setting. I'm assured the series does become that eventually, but these short series in the meantime just feel like a lot of preamble to let us know the modus operandi of Geralt of Rivia.
If you read this in Polish as a bilingual, fair warning: It is fairly difficult and you will need Google Translate here and there. It is my first language and I consider myself fluent (though I am more fluent in English at this point) but it's likely that the time this was written combined with some medieval concepts make this a bit more difficult to read.
The short stories are very memorable and charming. They have the style of Grimm's fairy tales, where the characters, though fantastical, have very dark origins or motivations. This is just a matter of taste, but with the characters consistently appearing and reappearing (especially the ever-charming Jaskier/Dandelion) I would prefer to read a more developed Sword & Sorcery drama like Game of Thrones or Wheel of Time in this setting. I'm assured the series does become that eventually, but these short series in the meantime just feel like a lot of preamble to let us know the modus operandi of Geralt of Rivia.
Superman: Red Son (New Edition)
Kilian Plunkett, Paul Mounts, Ken Lopez, Walden Wong, Andrew C. Robinson, Dave Johnson, Mark Millar
I heard of this in an HBO Max recommendation. The movie sucked ass and felt like it had a lot of things added to the script to try appealing to the modern audience, and lo and behold, I was right. This was an incredible read, honestly up there as maybe one of the greatest comics of all time. I feel like normally, someone would want to tell a story like this out of a glowing spark of inspiration and then unfortunately never get the rights to these original characters so they would have to make facsimiles of licensed characters to tell it. By getting the original DC characters the world has come to know and love, and then recontextualizing them into Communism, we realize this isn't just an alternate version of the heroes, but an alternate version of the world we live in.
The tone is incredibly serious all throughout which I admire. Comic book movies nowadays have a complete allergy to maintaining a serious tone, and though things are very kitsch in execution. A dust mite/tick attacks a metropolis at one point. A rioting America has a single panel that parodies the cover of the first-ever Superman comic. There's an almost forced, goofy motif of Lex Luthor and Superman playing chess completely separate from and yet against one another. Batman wears a Bat-Ushanka. Honestly, you could even say that the fact Superman replaces his logo with the hammer and sickle is silly. I don't want to be a comic book nerd about this, as I don't know this for sure: I thought it was established that the S on his uniform only coincidentally resembled the Roman alphabet "S", so in theory wouldn't the S be the same? The answer is, it doesn't matter because that's just less fun. And that's the point to an extent: These are all used in ways that elevate the characters and they take the death tolls and their negligence very seriously. It is to say that the petty flaws of the characters with powers of gods have consequences that wipe out countless lives of people who both depend on and fear them.
To go character by character:
Superman:
Between Injustice, Homelander, and so many other examples of "What if Superman was bad?", this Superman has to be my favorite because of how nuanced it is. Superman, at his core, is not spiteful, and we never really questioned how his values were influenced simply by having Ma and Pa Kent around. They were good parents, but he was inadvertently also raised to support American ideals that we don't really question. It stands to reason that if he had landed in Soviet territory, the parents there wouldn't have made him any more or any less bad, he would have just had a different set of values. What's interesting is that he ends up re-shaping the world. His influence upends our normal history because instead of the de facto general victory of capitalism during the Cold War, Communism begins to spread because he becomes an intimidating figure. What I love is how powerful he is, how dedicated he is to an ideal he sees as above even himself, and how powerless he is to stop dissidents and the world around him. He's not evil, and he's actually quite sad and human--while still expected to save absolutely everyone and everything. It makes his mistakes that much more frightening when they have lives on the line, and it makes his successes that much more confusing to root for, as even those have their own dissidents.
Batman:
What's completely strange is that I do not think there has ever been a version of Batman I ever vibed with. He's a little too aloof, almost a force of nature who seeks to eliminate any humanity in himself as he dedicates himself to a higher ideal. It's not to say he isn't fun or compelling, but just that he's not the kind of guy that ever felt real to me. That was completely changed in this version. I like that they don't have him stay American, which they do to Lex Luthor, and he's actually quite compelling as a result now that he's the good guy by default representing "the American Way". But Batman represents a different section of the left-wing spectrum: namely, anarchy, and it strangely makes him similar to the Joker. He is more bitter and even cracks a smile a few times, and Superman describes him and other dissidents as people "fighting for the right to live in hell", who reject a Communist utopia because there is no freedom of thought, that freedom has been traded for security. Some of the best drawings in this whole book are of Batman and he was my favorite character by the end, and he was a worthy adversary and a great reinterpretation.
Wonder Woman:
I think this may frustrate a feminist reader, although I didn't pay it much mind. Wonder Woman is infatuated with Superman, who is completely oblivious to her advances and interests. She adopts Communism as a means to become closer to him, but completely drops him and any interest in him as a result of a battle in which he forces her into defeating Batman, an experience which traumatizes her and leaves her bedridden, and ultimately vengeful. I think that a clumsy interpretation of this would be that Wonder Woman is a person of no agency; that she exists merely as a romantic interest that Superman abjures and she keeps coming back to. The right way to look at this, I think, is to realize she was robbed of her agency through a strange compulsion Superman seemed to activate in her brain, and to show just how inhuman he is to someone who could otherwise be a partner to him. He even describes Lois at one point almost like an animal. I don't think any characters are sexualized--you even see them age and dress fairly conservatively, although there is a very charming early sketch of Wonder Woman as a pinup in the appendix! Wonder Woman is a secondary character, sure, but she does have some scathing comments about the avarice of men by the end and realizes for herself that no matter what their ideals, men chasing their dreams will hurt anyone just to achieve them, and in the end it is always because of their vanity that they represent something greater.
Green Lantern:
Sucks and I do not know why he's here other than some internal obligation. Even Bizarro has a logical point. Very tellingly, most characters seem to have a slight blurb about them in the appendix that talks about all the thoughts they have about their development lovingly, with even in-jokes about their appearance (like the aforementioned Bat-Ushanka) while Green Lantern just has no confidence. It has question marks, an unenthused "kind of" description of their 1950s bomber jacket, and a wholly uninspired "the ring is pretty much the same." His influence is minimal and it was the dumbest part of the whole book which was otherwise incredible.
The Art:
I wanted this to be more of a character. There are some great full-page spreads, like Superman holding up the globe or soaring over a banner of Joseph Stalin, and you do see some propaganda posters, but for better or worse the art style is something I would describe as "stereotypical comic book". That isn't to say it's bad, and I'm able to follow everything. It's just that I think there is a missed opportunity to have EVERYTHING look like that art deco propaganda poster style, or at least really focus the moments we are in the USSR to drive that point home.
All in all, this is one of the best comics I've read and I'm pretty picky about them. I only wish it was longer, but it does begin and end its narrative with no loose ends. If you are embittered with Superman as a concept and don't think he can be compelling, but you aren't into the edgelord interpretations where he's out-and-out evil, this is a perfect thing to pick up. Amazing premise, great story, great characters.
The tone is incredibly serious all throughout which I admire. Comic book movies nowadays have a complete allergy to maintaining a serious tone, and though things are very kitsch in execution. A dust mite/tick attacks a metropolis at one point. A rioting America has a single panel that parodies the cover of the first-ever Superman comic. There's an almost forced, goofy motif of Lex Luthor and Superman playing chess completely separate from and yet against one another. Batman wears a Bat-Ushanka. Honestly, you could even say that the fact Superman replaces his logo with the hammer and sickle is silly. I don't want to be a comic book nerd about this, as I don't know this for sure: I thought it was established that the S on his uniform only coincidentally resembled the Roman alphabet "S", so in theory wouldn't the S be the same? The answer is, it doesn't matter because that's just less fun. And that's the point to an extent: These are all used in ways that elevate the characters and they take the death tolls and their negligence very seriously. It is to say that the petty flaws of the characters with powers of gods have consequences that wipe out countless lives of people who both depend on and fear them.
To go character by character:
Superman:
Between Injustice, Homelander, and so many other examples of "What if Superman was bad?", this Superman has to be my favorite because of how nuanced it is. Superman, at his core, is not spiteful, and we never really questioned how his values were influenced simply by having Ma and Pa Kent around. They were good parents, but he was inadvertently also raised to support American ideals that we don't really question. It stands to reason that if he had landed in Soviet territory, the parents there wouldn't have made him any more or any less bad, he would have just had a different set of values. What's interesting is that he ends up re-shaping the world. His influence upends our normal history because instead of the de facto general victory of capitalism during the Cold War, Communism begins to spread because he becomes an intimidating figure. What I love is how powerful he is, how dedicated he is to an ideal he sees as above even himself, and how powerless he is to stop dissidents and the world around him. He's not evil, and he's actually quite sad and human--while still expected to save absolutely everyone and everything. It makes his mistakes that much more frightening when they have lives on the line, and it makes his successes that much more confusing to root for, as even those have their own dissidents.
Batman:
What's completely strange is that I do not think there has ever been a version of Batman I ever vibed with. He's a little too aloof, almost a force of nature who seeks to eliminate any humanity in himself as he dedicates himself to a higher ideal. It's not to say he isn't fun or compelling, but just that he's not the kind of guy that ever felt real to me. That was completely changed in this version. I like that they don't have him stay American, which they do to Lex Luthor, and he's actually quite compelling as a result now that he's the good guy by default representing "the American Way". But Batman represents a different section of the left-wing spectrum: namely, anarchy, and it strangely makes him similar to the Joker. He is more bitter and even cracks a smile a few times, and Superman describes him and other dissidents as people "fighting for the right to live in hell", who reject a Communist utopia because there is no freedom of thought, that freedom has been traded for security. Some of the best drawings in this whole book are of Batman and he was my favorite character by the end, and he was a worthy adversary and a great reinterpretation.
Wonder Woman:
I think this may frustrate a feminist reader, although I didn't pay it much mind. Wonder Woman is infatuated with Superman, who is completely oblivious to her advances and interests. She adopts Communism as a means to become closer to him, but completely drops him and any interest in him as a result of a battle in which he forces her into defeating Batman, an experience which traumatizes her and leaves her bedridden, and ultimately vengeful. I think that a clumsy interpretation of this would be that Wonder Woman is a person of no agency; that she exists merely as a romantic interest that Superman abjures and she keeps coming back to. The right way to look at this, I think, is to realize she was robbed of her agency through a strange compulsion Superman seemed to activate in her brain, and to show just how inhuman he is to someone who could otherwise be a partner to him. He even describes Lois at one point almost like an animal. I don't think any characters are sexualized--you even see them age and dress fairly conservatively, although there is a very charming early sketch of Wonder Woman as a pinup in the appendix! Wonder Woman is a secondary character, sure, but she does have some scathing comments about the avarice of men by the end and realizes for herself that no matter what their ideals, men chasing their dreams will hurt anyone just to achieve them, and in the end it is always because of their vanity that they represent something greater.
Green Lantern:
Sucks and I do not know why he's here other than some internal obligation. Even Bizarro has a logical point. Very tellingly, most characters seem to have a slight blurb about them in the appendix that talks about all the thoughts they have about their development lovingly, with even in-jokes about their appearance (like the aforementioned Bat-Ushanka) while Green Lantern just has no confidence. It has question marks, an unenthused "kind of" description of their 1950s bomber jacket, and a wholly uninspired "the ring is pretty much the same." His influence is minimal and it was the dumbest part of the whole book which was otherwise incredible.
The Art:
I wanted this to be more of a character. There are some great full-page spreads, like Superman holding up the globe or soaring over a banner of Joseph Stalin, and you do see some propaganda posters, but for better or worse the art style is something I would describe as "stereotypical comic book". That isn't to say it's bad, and I'm able to follow everything. It's just that I think there is a missed opportunity to have EVERYTHING look like that art deco propaganda poster style, or at least really focus the moments we are in the USSR to drive that point home.
All in all, this is one of the best comics I've read and I'm pretty picky about them. I only wish it was longer, but it does begin and end its narrative with no loose ends. If you are embittered with Superman as a concept and don't think he can be compelling, but you aren't into the edgelord interpretations where he's out-and-out evil, this is a perfect thing to pick up. Amazing premise, great story, great characters.
It hurts to give this a low score, but it started so high and then became so disappointing. Banks attractively outlines everything about his proposed "Digital Griot" magnificently in the first chapter, so much so that it sets your imagination on fire as you try to consider all the ways you could apply that kind of rhetoric and analyze so many works, and really, it's a testament to how loose the word "text" is. It is a culturally rich idea and it was the most brilliant part of the book.
And then the Mix and Remix chapter happen. At times exhausting, even outright excruciating at worst. Chapter 2 delves into a solipsistic view of why the author is involved with the field, and what's frustrating about these sections is that they have nothing to do with actually being a digital griot. For some reason we get a prequel to the impetus of the idea that is almost completely off-topic, and it stays that way for unforgivable amounts of time.
Chapter 4 does bring it back into relevance, and I'll admit that the previous two chapters were not completely absent of nuggets of wisdom. (And only that. And I am being charitable in saying they happen "occasionally".) The fifth chapter, "Fade", teeters on a borderline of relevance, which is what turned this from a 4, to a 3, to a 2 for me. I will be citing this book, because what is written well is written EXTREMELY well. But unlike the author, I will be editing out the long swaths of unrelated text that, while not bad, is completely irrelevant to the professed subject and thesis of the writing.
And then the Mix and Remix chapter happen. At times exhausting, even outright excruciating at worst. Chapter 2 delves into a solipsistic view of why the author is involved with the field, and what's frustrating about these sections is that they have nothing to do with actually being a digital griot. For some reason we get a prequel to the impetus of the idea that is almost completely off-topic, and it stays that way for unforgivable amounts of time.
Chapter 4 does bring it back into relevance, and I'll admit that the previous two chapters were not completely absent of nuggets of wisdom. (And only that. And I am being charitable in saying they happen "occasionally".) The fifth chapter, "Fade", teeters on a borderline of relevance, which is what turned this from a 4, to a 3, to a 2 for me. I will be citing this book, because what is written well is written EXTREMELY well. But unlike the author, I will be editing out the long swaths of unrelated text that, while not bad, is completely irrelevant to the professed subject and thesis of the writing.
Awesome from start to finish. Incredible art, incredible action. I read it all in one sitting and honestly I to let out a breath I didn’t realize I’d been holding. Pure, unadulterated fun. Oliver is a fantastic pure antihero whose crusade is understandable yet no less unsettling, the bad guys are a freaky twist on a familiar formula, and it all has a sadistic sense of humor that only the best comics can handle. If you’re exhausted by superhero media, this is the cathartic shot of adrenaline you need. I’m a full convert to Donny Cates, I’m boutta buy his entire stock.
Comics are a visual medium. Fiction embodies an inherently fantastic premise where metaphors are represented visually.
The world of Transmetropolitan is a cyberpunk funhouse mirror that catches the things we’ve ignored and warps them into details that are directly in outer space face, at all times. There is no way to better describe Transmetropolitan than as an ugly, garish comic with advertisements for in-universe crap polluting each page. You hate the world every bit as much as Spider Jerusalem — a gonzo journalist with a hell of a catchy name and a foul mouth — because his is the refreshing kind of objective bitterness you wish you could proclaim at the injustice, bigotry, and overall cruelty of the world. Everything is timeless and feels like it could have come out yesterday — the fact it’s been 20 years is astonishing.
However, there are some problems. Now this may just be a personal gripe, but I would prefer Spider to actually interact with a larger story; a grander conspiracy he seeks to undermine, or some corruption that truly makes him sick. Now the stories aren’t bad; an especially powerful one ends with him calling out a convention of religious hucksters, then — dressed mockingly as Jesus — he flips the tables of the bastards while denouncing their cruel manipulation, and oh, get it? It’s like Jesus upending the tables of the moneylenders. That’s the kind of unsubtle, powerful kitsch I love. But without a real throughline or story lasting longer than slight character continuity or 3-5 “issues”, each story becomes more like a slightly longer Calvin and Hobbes strip criticizing sond limpdick promise or another the future claims to hold but that our present vaguely reflects a little. Nonetheless, its points are pretty solid. A great romp through cyberpunk with someone who understands the genre well.
The world of Transmetropolitan is a cyberpunk funhouse mirror that catches the things we’ve ignored and warps them into details that are directly in outer space face, at all times. There is no way to better describe Transmetropolitan than as an ugly, garish comic with advertisements for in-universe crap polluting each page. You hate the world every bit as much as Spider Jerusalem — a gonzo journalist with a hell of a catchy name and a foul mouth — because his is the refreshing kind of objective bitterness you wish you could proclaim at the injustice, bigotry, and overall cruelty of the world. Everything is timeless and feels like it could have come out yesterday — the fact it’s been 20 years is astonishing.
However, there are some problems. Now this may just be a personal gripe, but I would prefer Spider to actually interact with a larger story; a grander conspiracy he seeks to undermine, or some corruption that truly makes him sick. Now the stories aren’t bad; an especially powerful one ends with him calling out a convention of religious hucksters, then — dressed mockingly as Jesus — he flips the tables of the bastards while denouncing their cruel manipulation, and oh, get it? It’s like Jesus upending the tables of the moneylenders. That’s the kind of unsubtle, powerful kitsch I love. But without a real throughline or story lasting longer than slight character continuity or 3-5 “issues”, each story becomes more like a slightly longer Calvin and Hobbes strip criticizing sond limpdick promise or another the future claims to hold but that our present vaguely reflects a little. Nonetheless, its points are pretty solid. A great romp through cyberpunk with someone who understands the genre well.
Fuck.
I really hovered on if this was a four-star or five-star book but honestly, it earned the five.
The thing I wanted—for Spider to focus on something to give the series a throughline—has come in the form of a nasty election. The incumbent president is a conservative called The Beast—a deliciously vague name coined by Spider himself that lets you find whatever reflections you can find in our world onto him. But the vague democratic party has only a gawking soulless “Smiler” assuring everything will be alright when his only winning trait is not being his opponent. And he’s got skeletons of his own in the closet—collusions that make him no better than his opposition, that Spider vows to reveal at all costs—even if the Beast is re-elected.
And all this is tied to a personal story. Of course Transmetropolitan is a political/urban commentary, but we never feel preached to because it’s in service to Spider’s personal narrative. He can’t do well with praise—he hates when his iconic glasses become cheap cosplay merchandise, but when he headbutts a Neo-Nazi just for screwing with him, he is visibly and actively disturbed when others clap him on the back and applaud his American machismo. He is bad with his personal relationships, but for one non-bleak moment it all seems like it will turn around, that in spite of everything Spider will not only get his justice but the world might turn around to be less bleak. And that world will instead spit on him, and all of us.
As a self-contained volume, Year of the Bastard may be the strongest series of Spider Jerusalem’s story yet. I ordered Absolute Transmetropolitan next and will be continuing there, though I believe the thing I asked for—the throughline—may be gone by this point. But who knows? The vignettes of reasons the future/our real world suck are not bad, and Lord knows I want more, so why not. Long Live Spider Jerusalem.
I really hovered on if this was a four-star or five-star book but honestly, it earned the five.
The thing I wanted—for Spider to focus on something to give the series a throughline—has come in the form of a nasty election. The incumbent president is a conservative called The Beast—a deliciously vague name coined by Spider himself that lets you find whatever reflections you can find in our world onto him. But the vague democratic party has only a gawking soulless “Smiler” assuring everything will be alright when his only winning trait is not being his opponent. And he’s got skeletons of his own in the closet—collusions that make him no better than his opposition, that Spider vows to reveal at all costs—even if the Beast is re-elected.
And all this is tied to a personal story. Of course Transmetropolitan is a political/urban commentary, but we never feel preached to because it’s in service to Spider’s personal narrative. He can’t do well with praise—he hates when his iconic glasses become cheap cosplay merchandise, but when he headbutts a Neo-Nazi just for screwing with him, he is visibly and actively disturbed when others clap him on the back and applaud his American machismo. He is bad with his personal relationships, but for one non-bleak moment it all seems like it will turn around, that in spite of everything Spider will not only get his justice but the world might turn around to be less bleak. And that world will instead spit on him, and all of us.
As a self-contained volume, Year of the Bastard may be the strongest series of Spider Jerusalem’s story yet. I ordered Absolute Transmetropolitan next and will be continuing there, though I believe the thing I asked for—the throughline—may be gone by this point. But who knows? The vignettes of reasons the future/our real world suck are not bad, and Lord knows I want more, so why not. Long Live Spider Jerusalem.
The Smiler has settled nicely into the primary antogonist role since his rise to power in Year of the Bastard, and this book is a testament to the art of comics as a whole. He is pure evil and represents every shitheel political candidate who smiles almost unsettlingly ear-to-ear as he fucks over the population, but he’s still personal to Spider, having hurt not only someone he loves but his private hope that the City could get better despite his misanthropic ramblings.
Spider’s entourage are lovable scamps—they make for nice stand-ins for the audience, as all of us aren’t so dedicated to some gonzo journalism and the cathartic punching and blasting Spider does. They try to get through life in the City and enjoy some of the hedonistic advancements the vague futuristic setting has, but they recognize the importance of someone bucking the system and making sure those in power fear the people. All people can’t be Spider—that would be chaos, strangely enough, and he’s not the best or most stable moral authority. But if the consumerist world of excess is the id, and Spider is the superego always pointing out all the flaws, then the assistants—and the reader—are the reconciling ego. Learn from this art! Nothing is made or written this lovingly without purpose; it was made to satirize and show you the flaws of our own world that inspired it, and think of ways to do something about it.
Anyhow, some flaws—while I whinged about earlier issues not having a central antagonist and just being directionless critiques of religion, politics, society, etc., I still found such one-offs interesting and with something to say. I wish that the central Spider vs. Smiler storyline was more flawlessly tied to the one-off critique stories. There are some good connections, about how journalism is corporate and Spider’s pursuit of the truth is hampered by investors considering him risky, but in equal measures we halt the story to critique society, and sometimes we halt the critique to suddenly have a dramatic hitman from the Smiler cause havoc.
Still, if there were such a thing as 4.5 stars on Goodreads, this would have earned that, I think. I’ll be picking up the next Absolute Transmetropolitan for sure. (As soon as the more affordable re-release comes out and not a scalped collector’s item for 600 fucking dollars used…)
Spider’s entourage are lovable scamps—they make for nice stand-ins for the audience, as all of us aren’t so dedicated to some gonzo journalism and the cathartic punching and blasting Spider does. They try to get through life in the City and enjoy some of the hedonistic advancements the vague futuristic setting has, but they recognize the importance of someone bucking the system and making sure those in power fear the people. All people can’t be Spider—that would be chaos, strangely enough, and he’s not the best or most stable moral authority. But if the consumerist world of excess is the id, and Spider is the superego always pointing out all the flaws, then the assistants—and the reader—are the reconciling ego. Learn from this art! Nothing is made or written this lovingly without purpose; it was made to satirize and show you the flaws of our own world that inspired it, and think of ways to do something about it.
Anyhow, some flaws—while I whinged about earlier issues not having a central antagonist and just being directionless critiques of religion, politics, society, etc., I still found such one-offs interesting and with something to say. I wish that the central Spider vs. Smiler storyline was more flawlessly tied to the one-off critique stories. There are some good connections, about how journalism is corporate and Spider’s pursuit of the truth is hampered by investors considering him risky, but in equal measures we halt the story to critique society, and sometimes we halt the critique to suddenly have a dramatic hitman from the Smiler cause havoc.
Still, if there were such a thing as 4.5 stars on Goodreads, this would have earned that, I think. I’ll be picking up the next Absolute Transmetropolitan for sure. (As soon as the more affordable re-release comes out and not a scalped collector’s item for 600 fucking dollars used…)
Ending series isn’t easy. While the story is still good, unfortunately it gets muddled a bit with various insanity plotlines and just a generally unsatisfying ending that doesn’t wrap things up too well. But the art is great, the characters are still wonderful, and it’s hard to hate the extreme high that the first in the series set up.
I had high hopes given the cult that surrounds this book, but it was shockingly mundane when all was said and done. I kept expecting plot twists or unexpected lessons about honor and tough love, but no. Instead, everything plays out exactly as expected. The bad guys are the bad guys for very simple reasons. The characters who are good are just that, with no nuance or moments where they make mistakes. When there are massive things at stake, main characters often get distracted to the detriment of the lives of those around them. I didn't think my expectations were unreasonably high either--when it comes to children's media you can get books that are fairly complex, but this was just mediocre. Functionally harmless for kids, I guess, but nowhere near the complexity that people tout it for.
I think it would have helped to have more fantasy elements; I mean, the cats are already talking to one another and expressing complex thoughts, and clans have "medicine cats" that gather herbs for healing, staving off starvation, and whatever else. They're not wild animals so much as a series of tribes with a shared mythos, so the explicit existence of magic wouldn't be that odd. Maybe future installments use it, but so far this was a rough start.
I think it would have helped to have more fantasy elements; I mean, the cats are already talking to one another and expressing complex thoughts, and clans have "medicine cats" that gather herbs for healing, staving off starvation, and whatever else. They're not wild animals so much as a series of tribes with a shared mythos, so the explicit existence of magic wouldn't be that odd. Maybe future installments use it, but so far this was a rough start.