Tom Strong 19 (April 2003)

Tom Strong #19 This issue, containing three different stories by two writers (Moore on the first and last, daughter Leah on the middle one) and three different art teams (Howard Chaykin on the first, Shawn McManus and Steve Mitchell on the second, regular artists Sprouse and Story on the third), is mostly awesome.

Moore and Chaykin do a domestic adventure for Tom and Dhalau in the first story; Dhalau is kidnapped and Tom has to save the day. Throw in a matriarchal society and Moore gets to explore gender in comics. Chaykin’s exuberant but a tad too loose.

Leah Moore and McManus do a decent enough story with villain Saveen. McManus’s art is excellent but the final twist is too predictable.

The final story is an awesome riff on comic readers and the love of classic comics as objects. It’s funny, smart and mildly disturbing.

It’s a discreetly ambitious commentary on the medium.

A-

CREDITS

Electric Ladyland!; writer, Alan Moore; artist, Howard Chaykin. Bad to the Bone; writer, Leah Moore; artist, Shawn McManus. The Hero-Hoard of Horatio Hogg!; writer, Alan Moore; penciller, Chris Sprouse; inker, Karl Story. Colorist, Dave Stewart; letterer, Todd Klein; editors, Kristy Quinn and Scott Dunbier; publisher, America’s Best Comics.

The Complete Dracula (2009) #5

Cd5

With Worley returning to the art, The Complete Dracula stands as three-fifths of the best telling or retelling of Stoker’s Dracula… far better than the novel itself, even with the occasional adaptation quibbles. The book immediately returns to the multimedia presentation, the artwork again becoming a mix of painted landscapes and domestics and half-static, half-moving painted live action. It’s a lovely thing to look.

Thanks to the source novel, the story has problems. Stoker couldn’t write characters with distinct voice, he plotted poorly (Dracula’s been wanting to “invade” England for hundreds of years and runs off because of some saps?), so those problems remain. But Moore and Reppion, who might appreciate the novel a little too much to truly make it work, get past them overall.

It’s a lovely close to a troubled series. It’s unfortunate Dynamite thought a fill-in artist was the way to go.

The Complete Dracula (2009) #4

Cd4

In the notes for this issue, Moore and Reppion discuss the novel’s sexism. I think the less guarded description would be Stoker’s misogyny. It’s somewhat curbed here, in the adaptation, as the writers are aware of its presence, whereas Stoker would not have been.

Lots happens in the issue and I could only wonder how it would have read with a better artist. Verma continues to disappoint. Aaron Campbell’s no longer contributing and the comic has lost its visual flare. There’s no more mixed media. There’s no more visual creativity. It’s gone, now, from being a pleasant surprise to the kind of crap Radical puts out. It’s embarrassing, actually. I feel bad for the writers, since–if I were to have bought the hard cover sight unseen–I would have tried to return it once the art changed.

It’s beyond too bad, since the adaptation itself is quite well-written.

The Complete Dracula (2009) #3

Cd3

Unfortunately, Worley’s gone this issue (he’s credited with layouts). Verma is … Verma’s painted comic art looks like all the lame painted comic art I’ve seen before, the stuff to make me dread a painted comic. His figures are fine, his faces are awful. The texture and depth of the book is now gone. It’s so distractingly, it’s hard to think about the writing, as this change in artist takes the book from being a measured success to a moderate failure.

Oddly, Verma’s illustrating abilities are strong (his pencils are in the issue’s notes).

I can’t remember the novel, if there really is so much time spent on the death of Lucy, but when Moore and Reppion take the whole issue, it’s hard not to think something’s going to be missed. But Mina is Dracula’s victim in the novel, right? Not his lover. So they should be fine filling two issues.

The Complete Dracula (2009) #2

Cd2

So, I guess I hadn’t realized how important Aaron Campbell’s layout contributions are to this series. There’s an example in the back of the comic and it’s clear he’s significant.

The Dracula novel, with the diary entries, the letters, the clippings, is sort of a multimedia (for the late nineteenth century) piece, and this adaptation fully realizes the potential, now incorporating visuals.

Not all the visuals work, however, especially here. There’s a lot of photoshopping going on, a lot of clearly blurred images, a lot of photographic backgrounds with a minimal amount of “painting” over. There moments distract, since Worley’s paintings are usually quite good, even if Mina doesn’t look the same panel to panel (one can’t tell if she’s supposed to be attractive, for example).

The comic’s so successful adapting the novel’s diary entries and letters, actual dialogue comes as a shock, like it doesn’t belong here at all.

The Complete Dracula (2009) #1

Cd1

No one told me Dracula was going to be a digitally painted comic. I usually avoid those. But I probably still would have picked this one and a good thing, because it’s not bad.

As a novel, Dracula, is complete garbage. It’s such garbage, it’s almost impossible to find a good adaptation of it, illustrated, filmed or otherwise. Stoker’s lack of basic writing competence being a major problem. Fruit of the poisonous tree and all.

Moore and Reppion combat it a little with a prologue, making Harker more of a protagonist. But, as usual, the Castle Dracula stuff gets old fast (they even reference a scene they didn’t adapt).

However, the Mina Murray stuff is nice, maybe because Worley paints all the panels like static paintings. He occasionally captures profound moments for Mina, which works.

I’m not sure where the comic’s going quality-wise, but it seems interesting at least.

Sherlock Holmes (2009) #5

Sher5

Oh, good grief. I almost feel silly reading it. I’m really hoping Leah Moore and John Reppion’s foreshadowing of Mycroft being Moriarty is inadvertent or just silly business instead of their actual plans for the series. I imagine it’ll be back, with more lame references to World War I possibly. The book actually saddens me a little, with the minor references to League of Extraordinary Gentlemen–it only introduces comparisons between Moore and her father and she comes up short.

I’m a little put out, given the $3.50 price tag per issue and Dynamite’s generally fine track record so far–I mean, they put out Battlefields, it’s hard to believe they’d let this nonsense out of the stable. Moore and Reppion don’t bring anything new to Sherlock Holmes, nothing movies in the 1930s weren’t already doing.

Except, I suppose, they weren’t ripping off the The Untouchables–turning Watson into an action hero.

Sherlock Holmes (2009) #4

Sher4

This issue’s lettering has a particular understanding of punctuation. It’s rather annoying, while also being incorrect.

Worse, in a terribly paced series overall, this issue serves no purpose but to promise us the final issue–but I find it unlikely it’ll deliver the promised “Trial of Sherlock Holmes.” Instead, I’m guessing it’ll be some speedy and cute resolution.

And even though Holmes appears in more panels this issue, I think, than any other so far, he’s still a subplot in his own book. Moore and Reppion seem far more interested in their undoubtedly clever mystery than characters, but they’re also not playing fair with the mystery.

From the start, the reader hasn’t been given all the information. I’m not suggesting the reader has to be able to solve it–Conan Doyle didn’t follow that practice–but when you show Watson reading instructions and don’t reveal them?

You’re just plain cheating.

Sherlock Holmes (2009) #3

Sher3

Perhaps I’m just a little worn down, but I found this issue a lot better. Unfortunately, I know it really isn’t much better–Holmes is still a minor character in his own book and the thing’s way too full with lots of foreshadowing, cameos and sensationalism. But I’ve come to accept the book’s not going to be perfect–or particularly good and I’ve accepted it–I can enjoy the reading experience to some degree now.

A limited one, of course, because it’s an intentionally confusing issue with a lot of storytelling devices at play to allow for the “fullest” issue possible.

What’s missing is charm. The comic makes Holmes the protagonist and “good guy” because it’s easy to, especially in comics and even more especially when the book’s named after the good guy hero. Holmes is a fun character, an erudite pulp hero, there’s too much Sturm und Drang here.

Sherlock Holmes (2009) #2

Sher2

The second issue is an improvement overall, but there are still a lot of problems. Aaron Campbell’s period art is good (if static) and better when he’s not illustrating the principles. There’s something boring about his art during the scenes with Watson or Lestrade, but exciting when it’s absolute strangers.

Leah Moore and John Reppion can’t help laying in the foreshadowing–Lestrade’s boss has it out for Holmes for some unknown reason–and it doesn’t help the book any. It’s Sherlock bloody Holmes and he’s barely in the book. He shows up at the beginning and the end. And there’s no progress made on the mystery Holmes purportedly committed, much less the overall one.

It’s a competently produced effort, but it’s got a lot of work to do to get engaging. Having the protagonist in jail leads to narrative problems. Just ask Ed Brubaker.

Still, there aren’t as many lame references this issue.